Northwestern offered running back Evan Hull last Friday and he will be in Evanston this weekend for an official visit.
Could Hull be Northwestern's next 2019 commit? ($)
Could Hull be Northwestern's next 2019 commit? ($)
Could RB Evan Hull be NU's next 2019 commit?
- Thread starter lou v
- Start date
Hope so. NU has been very patient with offering RBs in this class after missing on Brock and Young. If they went ahead and offered Hull they must see a lot of potential in him.
His tape looks solid though I don’t know the level of competition he’s playing against.
His tape looks solid though I don’t know the level of competition he’s playing against.
This kid is good. Very underrated in my opinion. He reminds me of Bowser, though I think Hull is faster.
Last edited:
Both backs (Bowser and Hull) look pretty comfortable running between the tackles. They are patient/find a seam/make a single cut/run north-south-type backs. I was pleasantly surprised by Bowser's speed, balance and agility in tight spaces, as I did not expect this level of skill after watching his HUDL film. He is a better back than I expected coming out of high school. The staff gets big kudos for scouting this. That said, I hope he learns to avoid contact more. I worry about his longevity.
Hull is faster on tape. He might be a (high) 4.4 guy, but what really stands out is his 10-yard burst. He looks like he reaches top gear in 2-3 steps. His acceleration looks exceptional to my untrained eye. This is a great trait to have running in the B1G. He seems to have the balance, vision and one-cut ability to run inside in the B1G, though he will need to get bigger and stronger (I have no doubt he will).
A lot of Hull's tape shows him running off tackle. His line does a good job of getting push and sealing an edge, giving him lots of room. But on many of these runs he cuts back when he finds a seam. He sees the field well and takes good angles. A few times he wins a race to the corner and is able to turn upfield into the secondary. You have to get about 3 minutes in before you see him running more inside. Then you see him following his blocks patiently, finding a small seam, cutting through, and making plays.
He's no blue chip. but Hull has a lot of skills that I think cannot be taught. Just an instinctive runner. I think he may be a real diamond in the rough.
Hull is faster on tape. He might be a (high) 4.4 guy, but what really stands out is his 10-yard burst. He looks like he reaches top gear in 2-3 steps. His acceleration looks exceptional to my untrained eye. This is a great trait to have running in the B1G. He seems to have the balance, vision and one-cut ability to run inside in the B1G, though he will need to get bigger and stronger (I have no doubt he will).
A lot of Hull's tape shows him running off tackle. His line does a good job of getting push and sealing an edge, giving him lots of room. But on many of these runs he cuts back when he finds a seam. He sees the field well and takes good angles. A few times he wins a race to the corner and is able to turn upfield into the secondary. You have to get about 3 minutes in before you see him running more inside. Then you see him following his blocks patiently, finding a small seam, cutting through, and making plays.
He's no blue chip. but Hull has a lot of skills that I think cannot be taught. Just an instinctive runner. I think he may be a real diamond in the rough.
Last edited:
One of Bowser’s most compelling traits is his ability to generate significant yards after contact. 2 yard runs turn into 4 yard gains, 5 yard runs turn into 8 yard gains etc. . Over the course of a game this is critical yardage that really contributes to sustaining drives and putting points on the board. Hull’s HS highlights don’t show this trait and his size seems to suggest he would have difficulty replicating this key Bowser trait at the Big Ten level. Of course Hull has more long speed so hopefully he can bring a different dimension to our backfield.
Last edited:
Get ‘em!
Definitely a step below most recruits in terms of offer list - mostly FCS, with the other Purple Wildcats the other P5 offer. Reported interest from Minnesota and Iowa and Iowa Stats, but no reported offers.
The staff has been judicious with offers, and I’m confident they’ll close the deal this weekend.
Definitely a step below most recruits in terms of offer list - mostly FCS, with the other Purple Wildcats the other P5 offer. Reported interest from Minnesota and Iowa and Iowa Stats, but no reported offers.
The staff has been judicious with offers, and I’m confident they’ll close the deal this weekend.
(Sigh) This board thinks every NU recruit is ‘very underrated’ and reminds them of another successful NU player.
Well, you have to admit there is a pretty good track record of finding and developing guys who fell pretty low on the Denny's scale. A few examples:
2012
Dan Vitale (.7949, 2*, 3rd lowest guy after LS Chris Fitzpatrick and Stephen Buckley, who was looking like a good player until an injury ended his career)
2013
Warren Long (.8029, lowest-rated guy in class after Niswander and Fuessel)
2014
Jared McGee (.7884, 2*, lowest in class)
XWash (.8013, 3rd lowest in class--obviously had a personal issue but was a pretty good player on the field)
2015
Montre Hartage (.7958, 2*, lowest rated in class)
Jake Murray (.7987, 2*, was hearing good things until injury retirement)
2016
Brian Bullock (.8117, 3*, lowest rated guy was on track to start before injury)
Alex Miller (.8197, 3*, 2nd lowest guy in class)
Travis Whillock (.8219, 3rd lowest in class, very underrated IMO when I watched his film)
Now I cannot claim that NU is better at finding these underscouted guys than other schools, but it is pretty clear that many of our lowest rated recruits in recent years have become very good players. The staff deserves any benefit of any doubt at this point.
For every one of these guys you mention, there is a Kyle Wagner or an Andre Butler. Putting up Jake Murray (whom I don't even remember being a recruited player or a member of the team) as an exhibit to demonstrate your point is a massive reach.
I'm glad we get a few potential diamonds in the rough each year. Some of them work out, many of them don't. If our classes have too many of them, we are in deep trouble.
Hopefully, Hull is one that works out.
But that's not true, certainly not the 2:1 ratio you imply, and our record indicates otherwise.
If you want to make a compelling arguement to support your position, you should probably cite some examples from this decade.
Fine. Throw out Jake Murray (trust me, he was a good player). The point remains. Often times, the lowest rated guys in our class have gone on to be productive players. It's pretty hard to deny that.
Or, take a step back and look at the big picture. Injuries to key players like we have seen in recent years would have sunk our season a decade ago. There is much better depth on recent teams. The loss of Larkin, Brown, and Moten this year left us without a run game for a few games, until Bowser popped out of nowhere. None of us saw that coming.
Or look at our secondary. The Ohio State game wasn't pretty, but they hung in there. There is depth in the secondary--a very hard position to fill.
I can find plenty to critique about our players, but I won't do it on the free boards. But as a whole, I think our scouting of lower end guys is quite good, and there is plenty of proof there to see this. You need the lower end of your classes to provide depth. Ours in recent years have done that and more.
Hull reminds me a bit of Brandon Roberson?? Is this crazy?? BR was one of my favorite players way back in the day. He was a 2/3 star hybrid player coming out of HS. I really enjoyed watching him play. If Hull turns out to be as good as TSutton, I would take that any Saturday in the Fall- and we all have a lot to be excited about.
Hull is listed as 5'11" and 190 #s.
JJTBC was 5'11", 180 #s and a was 4*.
Size has nothing to do with it.
So true...I laughed when I saw Kyle Wagner and Andre Butler mentioned. That ECat is a hoot isn't he?
Agree. I was just pointing out that the notion that the reason he wasn't rated higher was because of his size was a pretty weak argument.
Jake Murray. Most of our OL.
I can name a few just by looking at the roster, but I'd rather not given that they are still with the program or just about to leave without the benefit of a 5th year.
Jake Murray retired due to injury before ever stepping foot on the field so it’s hard to argue he was a bust. From what I had heard, he was a player. I don’t think you can fairly judge any of our OL recruits due to the player development issues we have previously discussed. I think there is a valid point to be made here but I think you have to support it with FItz era recruits even if you omit mentioning current players.
Fair point. I used Butler and Wagner because they were the exhibits I used when the debate that we are somehow great at finding diamonds in the rough and that it works really well first came up many years ago. Too lazy to do the work again, but I'm certain that we still have our share of reaches that never see the field (much less never having a remote shot of it at many of the programs we aspire to beat) and thus never get the attention that the Sherrick McManuses and Montre Hartages get. One in particular comes to mind who I won't name but is a really good dancer at least.
Anyways, not saying Hull won't be spectacular. The odds though are against him, but I wish him the best. When he arrives on campus, the number of offers or stars that he got won't matter.
Everyone likes to point out the 4 and 5 star busts, but statistically, we are better off with the Clayton Thorsons and Justin Jacksons than the unheralded diamonds as they are more likely to pan out.
I feel like these are the key points. Games like the Utah or Illinois this year and several others this season and the past couple of seasons really show just how much depth there is on our squads now.
We're succeeding at turning a lot more of our recruits into capable players. Generally that's going to be due to better recruiting and identification of talent across the board, but especially at the "lower end" in the back half of the recruiting classes.
And situations like this year's RB recruit situation are going to come up if you miss on your top options, you try to find the best "diamond in the rough". That's how this will always work. The opposite is our WR recruiting situation where we got the guys we wanted.
It also helps to know that we got a 2020 RB locked in early.
I don’t think Larkin being forced to take a medical DQ exactly counts as “missing.”
JJ shot up the rankings/stars late though. Like 75 spots in the final December rankings. After he proved in his title run he wasn't human. Rivals was definitely sleeping on him.
I don't think he meant Larkin or any current players as "misses". I think he was referring to earlier offers this season like Aaron Young.
That is because they very often are. Just look at our wins vs recruiting ratings
Underrated, diamond in the rough, high 2* who over-performed. Can’t we just attribute these so called anamolies to decent coaching? Or would that be detrimental for the calling of Heads?
Well, clearly we had trouble with depth at kicker this year.
But seriously, what about 2nd-4th string QBs? I absolutely won't name names, but for every Kafka backing up CJ or Persa behind Kafka, there are several kids that just never play. And if they do, it's unimpressive. Part of it may be that coaches just never want to play the guy, but it can't only be that.
