Name: Tavierre Dunlap
Height: 6’0″
Weight: 217 lbs.
High school: Del Valle (TX) Del Valle
Position: Running back
Class: Redshirt sophomore
Jersey number: #22
Last year: I ranked Dunlap #66 and said he would be a backup running back (LINK). He ran 9 times for 46 yards and caught 1 pass for 5 yards.
TTB Rating: 59
A blog contributor recently threw out the phrase "It's getting late early" in jest for a true freshman who might not fit what the current coaching staff wants, and that was a phrase that I was holding out until I got to the Dunlap post. Dunlap was the #237 overall player in the 2021 class, but he was part of a two-back class that included Donovan Edwards. While Edwards had some big plays in 2021 and had a standout season in 2022, Dunlap has been quietly working in as the fourth or fifth back. Last season he finished with fewer touches than Edwards, Blake Corum, freshman C.J. Stokes, walk-on Isaiah Gash, and converted linebacker Kalel Mullings. It was especially damning when Gash got some short yardage carries and some crunch-time touches against Illinois while Dunlap watched from the sideline.
Going into the 2023 season, Dunlap will certainly be behind Corum and Edwards, and I expect him to also be behind Stokes and Mullings. The real question is whether freshmen Benjamin Hall and Cole Cabana pass him up, too. Hall had a solid spring game, and Cabana is a speedster with big play ability. So far Dunlap has not shown much wiggle, speed, or power, and those skills don't often suddenly appear in year three. I would not be surprised if this is Dunlap's final year in a Michigan uniform before transferring. But hopefully Corum and Edwards can get their touches, put Michigan ahead, and leave a lot of reps in the third and fourth quarters for the backups to show their stuff.
Prediction: Backup running back and special teamer
It was getting late early already last year lol
ReplyDeleteneed better for the position ... hope the kid figures out where his opportunities may be
ReplyDeleteMy 2 cents on the RB hierarchy (with approx TTB rank*)
ReplyDelete1. Corum 10-15. Great player, an all-timer, but as we've seen the last 2 years he can be replaced without much impact on outcomes.
2. Edwards 15-20. Backups don't typically belong in the top 20 and I'm pretty sure I have not put two RBs in mine before. BUT Edwards is an impact receiver, big play threat, and Michigan wants to run a lot, so a 1A/1B rotation benefits everyone.
3. Stokes 45-55. Maybe this is foolish but my optimism isn't all that deterred by the quiet freshman year because I suspect the coaches overreacted to the fumble. Stokes is my best guess to take on RB3 duties which will hopefully "load manage" Corum/Edwards. It would be nice if the staff learned some lessons from the '22 Illinois game and lean on their backups more this year, but ultimately there's not enough separation yet between RB3 candidates yet to value any one too highly. Also, if 1A or 1B are hurt, this staff has shown that they are very capable of going into old-school primary back mode so RB3 is typically only so important.
4. Cabana 50-60. Potential highlight guy whose primary value as a freshman might be as a kick returner and gadget play guy but he's another option at RB3 too.
5. Hall 55-65. Speculation here but he could end up as the #3 back also. You never know about Freshman and there's an opportunity for someone to soak up snaps and gain a lead on the competition headed into 2023.
6. Mullings 70-80. Will surely get some carries, maybe even a bundle of TDs on the goalline, but also won't be relied on or hard to replace him with another player. Could move up a lot if he can do fullback type things (without fumbling).
7. Franklin 90-100. Special teams contributor whose RB contributions are superfluous.
8. Dunlap 100-110. Maybe the next host of the The Late Show.
*To be clear - these are my evaluations. I don't mean a guess on Thunder's rank. He'll always put RBs higher.
I understand your point that Corum and DE can be replaced by the other but I think you are overstating it. Yes, replaced for a few games where the other is the workhorse. But that's not the same as a season. Michigan runs a lot and a season without Corum would be a significant downgrade (and to a lesser extent, also for Edwards). I would say there are only 2-4 players more important to this team (without DE Corum would be my clear #2). And I would put Edwards around 10 or so.
DeleteI would actually have DE higher than Corum this year. And I agree with Lank's rankings if you're talking about 90% of the schedule, but when Michigan goes up against OSU / PSU / playoff teams, we're going to be heavily reliant on Edwards' explosiveness and ability to dictate matchups.
DeleteThat's always the issue I run into when thinking about these rankings - my own rankings will differ materially if we're talking about Michigan's 2-3 most difficult games vs. the rest of the schedule.
@Anon 130
DeleteYeah agree if you lose a guy for the entire year the the backup moves up a lot. Essentially he goes into the spot of the guy ahead of him and everyone slides up behind them, give or take their relative competence.
But isn't that true at every position - not just RB? And isn't it more true at a position that doesn't rotate (QB, LT, S) than at a position that does (RB, DE, DT)?
I think what you're getting at is that you need 2 guys at RB and while that's somewhat true, it's more of an optimal thing than a necessity. Illinois used Chase Brown for over 300 carries last year and Mike Hart was in that realm pretty regularly. You don't have to have your primary back handle every carry in every game - but he can probably handle 90% of them in the big important ones (as we've seen Edwards, Corum, and Haskins each do in the last couple years).
In my eyes the rotation that occurs at RB (and DE) is an argument for why the backup RB is more important than the backup LT but also why LT1 is more important than RB1 (speaking generally here, independent of individual ability or quality of depth).
Oh course losing Corum for the year would suck - that's why I put him in the top 15. But we already KNOW Edwards can handle the job if he goes down. We don't know that about Will Johnson's replacement, Rod Moore's replacement, JJ McCarthy's replacement, etc. I can name 10 starters off the top of my head that I would stress about losing for the year more than Corum. I guess I'm talking myself into a lower ranking if anything.
Disagree on Edwards over Corum. Corum is very explosive, for thing. He's the better overall back for another (IMO and the coaches). Also we're not reliant on either to beat a team like OSU (as we saw when Haskins was RB1).
DeleteLet's just hope both are healthy all year and we don't have to explore the issue of relative impact again. I would argue that 2021 and 2022 can teach us all the lessons we need to know about this.
Actually not quite what I was referring to - my argument is really that if we're constructing a ranking of the most important players in order to beat teams 4-13 on our schedule, that looks very different than if we're ranking the players most important to beating OSU / PSU / playoff teams. In other words, you can plug in Stokes for Corum and I'm not sure how much it matters against most of the teams on our schedule. It really goes back to our argument re. the importance of a difference maker at the RB position - it's not a position that matters all that much IMO against the middling teams on the schedule, but it matters quite a bit in those 50/50 games.
DeleteGotcha. My philosophy is that the key games are mostly the whole thing.
DeleteHere are the relevant contests in the last 2 years
PSU 21 - 31 carries for RB1 and 2 for RB2
OSU 21 - 28 carries for RB1 and 6 for RB2.
GA 21 - 9 carries for RB1 and 4 for RB2
PSU 22 - 28 carries for RB1 and 16 for RB2
OSU 22 - 22 for RB1 and 2 for RB2
TCU 22 - 23 for RB1 and 5 for RB2. 45 points.
As you already know that is with 3 different guys as RB1.
In the 4 games that were close the team leaned on one primary back for an average of about 26 carries while the backup got an average of 4 carries. The other two where blowouts (GA 21 and PSU 22) so the backup got a heavier load.
In 5 of these 6 games the team had one of their top 2 backs hurt. Our worst performance was when all 3 stud RBs were healthy.
It made no obvious difference in outcomes in any of them, who was healthy and who wasn't, though people argued vociferously otherwise (e.g., declaring we have no chance at beating OSU without Corum).
Back when Corum was lightning to Haskins Thunder people thought we needed both. When Corum became thunder and Edwards was lightning people thought we needed both. We beat OSU with one missing or significantly hobbled and it was... more than fine. Against Georgia each of the 3 backs ran for 4.0 to 4.3 yards.
So, I would say that regardless of if you have a back like Haskins, Corum, or Edwards or all 3 it doesn't really matter. If one goes down you just plug in the next guy and use him more. The OL is still going to mash (or not, against Georgia, regardless).
The game is won in the trenches.
And for anyone who wants to bring up Illinois 22 when we were down to zero of top guys:
First half (with Corum) - 7 points and 3 punts on 5 drives
Second half (with Stokes/Gash) - 12 points and 1 punt on 6 drives
so in this example, we have six big games over two championship seasons. Of the 5 scholarship guys & 3-4 walk-ons with conference game carries, the coaches lean on ONE guy. Does this imply RBs do matter, at least from the perspective, game planning & distribution choices of the coaches?
DeleteDo you think we beat TCU if we have Corum and Edwards?
Delete@JE
DeleteIt implies differentiation in players. No one has ever argued all RBs are identical and one cannot be better than the other. There are very real differences which we haved discussed frequently. The question is if these differences have a meaningful impact on results.
We've been through this before. It's not the same thing to say RBs are different and RBs matter. We can have different weather outside a dome, different uniforms, different commercials on the jumbotron. These things are different but they don't matter.
@Anon
I don't think having Corum would have changed the outcome. But I acknowledge the hypothetical is unknowable.
Here's why I say not. Our offense scored 45 points and Edwards ran for over 5 ypc and 100 yards. The offense was very good, but for 3 costly turnovers. The defense was very bad. Could Corum have changed those things?
Not likely. IMO. I've heard it argued that he could have (at least) replaced Mullings 5 carries. But - Mullings was playing FB on the play he fumbled on - was Corum going to lineup at FB? Was he going to change the playcall in that situation? It's a hypothetical and we won't know. Michigan probably runs that play with Mullings 100 times and fumbles it once. This was that once - shit happens.
I don't think we can just wave off the larger fact that the offense was excellent (for the 3rd playoff-type game in a row) without supposedly it's best and most important offensive player. Or, for that matter, ignore that the offense struggled badly for the half he played against Illinois (a better defense than any of Purdue, OSU, or TCU) immediately before it. Maybe we would have been even better with Corum! Maybe. Probably a bit. But how much? Were we going to score 50 ppg in these 3 games instead of 45 ppg? Maybe. Hard to say, but the analytics community would tell you no - no RB would make that much of a difference. The best RB in the world would need to carry the ball about 20 times to make a 2-point difference vs an average RB. If Edwards and Corum are both close enough to each other to have a debate about who is better than the other than the difference would shrink from that maximum.
We have been through this, and I am trying to drag this one out. But your response didn't answer: do the coaches lean one their main guy because he's different or because that decision matters
DeleteFor the record, I agree that corum (as much as I love the kid) wasn't going to get us past TCU. That team played the game of their lives, while we looked ahead to UGa, at least enough for a critical mistake or ten
The coaches have to make a decision to put guys out there. It doesn't necessarily mean it matters, even if they think it does. Hayden Fry thought the paint color in the locker room mattered, most other coaches don't.
DeleteThe coaches can lean on one guy because he is different. They can lean on 2 guys because they are different. Or they can rotate 5 games if they aren't different. It doesn't seem to affect outcomes.
If the differences don't affect outcomes, they don't matter.
I do respect the fact that some running backs (rarely) can be significant difference makers. Let's put the mark of significance at 1 or 2 points a game worth of differential for the sake of the debate (a couple extra TDs worth over a season).
DeleteI do also respect and believe the cliche that football is a game of inches and thus in some circumstances those individual difference could be enough to flip a Win to a Loss in a narrow contest. Marginal differences matter in instances like the 2016 OSU/UM game, in a way that they don't against Indiana or Purdue.
The 2 ppg differential noted above is not uniform - it's going to be 0 in some games and 6 in others. So what you really need to make an impact as a RB is to a) have that rare guy that makes the kind of difference than can swing a game by 6 points sometimes and b) have that swing occur in a rare game that is going to be decided by that 6 point swing.
This line of reasoning can make it hard for ANY player to matter individually (maybe except QB). That's true, but, well, some players and positions matter more than others. RB has the burden of being one of the most high profile ones, where many people repeatedly assert it's critical importance and spend lots of energy on parsing individual differences and discussing coaching playing time decisions to a level that just doesn't happen at other positions.
So, when we repeatedly see losing the VERY IMPORTANT guy who happens to be RB1 at the moment yet Michigan goes on to win the critical game without him, with his backup stepping in without so much as a sniff of an impact on the game outcomes, if anything looking better than ever without Mr. IMPORTANT, it seems like that narrative can be questioned. To it's fundamental core.
In the world of statistics you at least start with testing the null hypothesis (this doesn't matter). In non-statistical terms it's a basic thing you might call the sniff test.
In my view, informed by the work of sports statisticians doing legitimate academic work, as well as tech savvy journalists and researchers, the positions all can matter to some degree (we're talking a fraction of a point of "difference" per game) but the bigger differentials (of 1 or 2 ppg difference) happen at other positions. They almost never come from the RB position. Far more frequently they come not only from QB but lower profile spots like each of the 5 OL positions, each of the 5 DB positions, and on the DL.
TLDR version: if the difference-makers are rare and the circumstances where their differences would matter are rare, it's generally true that they don't matter.
So, we're questioning the coaches? We've seen pregame stories on the Iowa locker room, and coaches/players opinions differ from yours. One in particular is the effort JH put into covering up the pink prior to the 2016 game ...
DeleteAs we've discussed in the past - at a school MICHIGAN - it's not unusual to have an NFL bound ZC & HH on the same roster, or a Heisman candidate BC & future pro BE on the roster. Swapping them may not make too much a statistical difference (though the coaches still tend to have a preference), but as soon as you go to Dunlap, Stokes or the others, we get into significant trouble
The JHstaff believes RB matters. Our play calling is different, depending on who is in there. Where we run, how we run and especially how much we run (pass) changes depending on who is available. Contrast this with the many OL injuries, where we saw a number of different starters, but the calls were unchanged
@JE
Delete"as soon as you go to Dunlap, Stokes or the others, we get into significant trouble"
Prove it. You also said this about Edwards and it wasn't true.
"Where we run, how we run and especially how much we run (pass) changes depending on who is available."
As I've said before, I agree this can be true SOMETIMES. For one thing - that's not a problem. For another thing - it's usually not true. You've claimed at various times that Corum and Edwards are not between the tackles Harball guys yet there they are running between the tackles.
It's the results that matter not the way you get there. It's the OL blocking schemes and effectiveness that determine the run game success, not the RB.
No other coach (to my knowledge) has ever painted the opponents locker room pink, or otherwise engaged in interior design decisions. If coaches thought it would work they would do it.
Questioning the coaches is OK. Questioning the coaches about personnel decisions when they have 100x the info we have is highly dubious.
@ Lank 10:01 a.m.
Delete"Not likely. IMO. I've heard it argued that he could have (at least) replaced Mullings 5 carries. But - Mullings was playing FB on the play he fumbled on - was Corum going to lineup at FB? Was he going to change the playcall in that situation? It's a hypothetical and we won't know. Michigan probably runs that play with Mullings 100 times and fumbles it once. This was that once - shit happens."
No...we do know the answer to that question.
Kalel Mullings carries before Blake Corum got hurt: 0 (11 games)
Kalel Mullings carries after Blake Corum got hurt: 14 (3 games)
@Thunder. I'm not sure what your point is.
DeleteThe question posed is if the TCU outcome would change.
Lank, what kind of proof would suffice? I doubt any, but off the top of my head: Stokes falling on the exact same play that Edwards took to the house TWICE; Stokes didn't see the field again. Thunder brings up Mullings, who wasn't even in the RB room before the Corum injury. Then there's the subject of the OP, who was on the bench despite RB1 injury & RB2 in a cast
DeleteThis isn't a knock on Stokes as a potential player. Back in 2015 as a TrFR, Higdon tripped over his own feet against sparty, and sat most the rest of the season; the starters were a big enough difference where the coaches had a preference
*I said no such thing about Edwards, or Corum before that. Whenever you're stuck, you start to lie. I'll just bow out, and concede that the coaches do not make decisions based on which RB they have out there
@JE
DeleteThe offense was more successful against Illinois without Corum than with him. This is indisputable. The offense was highly successful against OSU, Purdue, and TCU without Corum averaging well over 40 points per game, without Corum. Also indisputable.
Falling - that's what you used to say about Edwards. Did you forget? I'm sure I can dig up your quotes about how Corum couldn't step in for Harball Haskins and Edwards was a finesse back who couldn't run between the tackles. Maybe just...sometimes it happens that RBs fall down? Corum has fallen down too. Haskins fell over too. Every RB (every human) stumbles and falls at some point. I can cherry pick one play by Gash that was successful and one by Corum that wasn't. It's meaningless.
Yes on Mullings - he wasn't in the RB room which is why he didn't get any carries. I'm not sure what you all think the big point here is. Mullings was more needed at LB than RB until both our starters got banged up and we added to options at LB. So he moved positions.
What proof would suffice? Let's start with some.
Corum is better than Edwards who is better than any of the gaggle of other guys. But take one of them out and it's no impact. Or at least no obvious one, certainly not to a level of doom and gloom as predicted.
What I would like to see is a clear example of a RB getting injured and the offense struggling without him. Not one play but a clear example of the offense really struggling when they lose their RB in a way that is out of line with what would have happened otherwise.
It hasn't happened at Michigan in my lifetime. JE said Haskins was the hero against OSU in 21 and that Corum couldn't do the same HARBALL stuff as he did. JE was wrong. JE said Michigan had no shot against OSU without Corum in 22. He was wrong.
These predictions are based on the same kind of assertions being made here again. Is it worth rethinking them?
Since no one will find an example at Michigan (and I can find plenty of counter-examples where it made no difference) I will open it up to other teams. How about the top RB in the NFL Derrick Henry going down with an injury in 2021? Nope - the replacement level backups stepped in and produced identical YPC.
I'm sure it's happened at some point. Barry Sanders was a difference maker. Reggie Bush in college. Etc. I just can't name a time where a star RB has been lost due to injury and the team doesn't immediately fill his void. Please educate me. I'm very confident there are examples out there.
@ Lank 9:00 a.m.
DeleteWell, that's not entirely the statement that was made, but regardless, Michigan lost by 6 points. If Corum gets the ball on the goal line instead of Mullings, that's +7 for Michigan (assuming Moody would make the extra point).
Or stokes for all we know. Or a QB sneak. Or corum trips. Corum is not worth 7 points a game. No RB is.
DeleteWho said Corum was worth 7 points a game? Michigan had a 1st-and-Goal on the 1-yard line. If a healthy Corum is in the game, he's getting in the end zone. They're not putting in Stokes at that point.
DeleteIf you score a touchdown it's generally 7 points and if you don't it's 0 points, so if you are saying Corum playing that one play changes the outcome of the play so that MIchigan gets an extra 7 points that is what you are saying.
DeleteYou could say Michigan is not putting in Stokes and you can say Michigan is not running a FB dive but going into that game the first one happened way more often than the second one. Other weird shit that happened on the goalline that game includes the Philly Special, a junior WR lining up offsides, michigan running their QB (gasp), and michigan running a screen. You can say Corum would have changed all those things but a) you don't know that because Michigan was still running power run plays just like normal with Mullings and Edwards at RB and b) half of the unusual things above worked. So take a 2 or 3 TDs off the board in your "no way that happens with Corum" hypothetical because it goes both ways. Corum's gotta be scoring 3 TDs at least, without taking any away from Edwards, to replicate what Michigan did on the goalline against TCU (Mullings TD, JJ's rushing TD, Bell's screen pass).
I can say, with equal validity, that if Corum doesn't play against Illinois that fumble play doesn't happen to kill the closing drive of the 1st half. Michigan punches in the last drive of the 1st half and cruises to victory instead of barely squeaking by. (they scored on most of the rest of the drives in the game). Or if McNamara is in against TCU instead of McCarthy no way he throws two pick 6s. So McNamara is a difference maker against TCU. These are terrible arguments, as is insisting that Corum would have prevented one very bad play from happening in a very long game that he didn't play in.
You're really reaching here.
Delete@ Lank 10:23 p.m.
DeleteKalel Mullings had zero college rushing attempts in three seasons until Blake Corum got hurt. The last time he played running back was before any of us had ever heard of COVID-19.
Jim Harbaugh wouldn't have called a fullback dive with Corum healthy, because there's no point. There were zero fullback dives called in the entirety of 2022 until Corum got hurt, because there was no need, because Corum scored from the tailback position.
You're not understanding that the personnel, play calling, etc. changed drastically because of Corum's injury. It's not just "Plug in RB2 for RB1 and RB3 for RB2 and everything just keeps rolling along the same way."
Numbers sometimes do not tell the whole story. I do not dispute that the yards per carry and the total offense may not change from RB1 to RB2 to RB3. The coaches adjust to the strength of the team. In the absence of Corum, they ran “high risk high reward” plays with JJ. I think it is not a coincidence that we have the most TO in the game against TCU. How many times have we given the ball to a FB in the regular season? Why did we do that in the game against TCU? Because Corum is not available. Corum should be top 5 in terms of importance even with Edwards as a back up. I believe we beat TCU with Corum because the coaches would have a different gameplan with Corum.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The game was more on McCarthy's shoulders against TCU. And on the goal line, Kalel Mullings probably isn't getting any handoffs if Corum is available.
Delete@FT
DeleteDon't you think the main driver in the offensive approach against TCU (put the game on McCarthy) was the fact that Michigan was down and the defense was bleeding points?
I think it's hard to make the case that there was a big play-calling shift that wouldn't have been there if Corum was healthy. Michigan didn't go to a boom/bust offense vs Purdue or OSU or Illinois 2nd half without Corum.
Maybe they threw deep a little more but that can also be explained by TCU/OSU selling out their safeties to stop the run and the defense giving up more points. Illinois had a great secondary - TCU and OSU don't. Also, the bowl game allowed them more time to prepare and get creative and shuffle personnel (Moten to LB, Mullings to RB).
RB2 carries in the first half of Illinois (with Corum) was 2.
RB2 carries in the first half of TCU (without Corum) was 2.
Because of injuries it was Corum/Stokes in Illinois and Edwards/Mulllings in TCU but the deployment of personnel was indistinguishable. 17 and 12 carries for RB1 and 2 carries for RB2. Mosty between the tackles either way.
Edwards stepped into Corum's role. Mullings stepped into Stokes role. The faces changed and the situation changed but Michigan leaned on RB1 and used RB2 in very similar ways against TCU and Illinois even though those are very different defenses.
Would things have been different if it was Corum/Stokes in there against TCU? I doubt it.
It's really too bad that we are probably going to see Edwards go to the NFL after this season because I would LOVE to have the experiment of the same RB playing behind an elite OL (Zinter/Keegan/Henderson/Nugent/Barnhart) going to one that has turned over at 4 or 5 spots in 2024.
ReplyDeleteThen again people ignore the downward trajectory that Fitz Toussaint had at Michigan going from 10.9 to 5.6 to 4.0 to 3.5 ypc from his freshman to senior year.