Scout Quotes on Maurice Hurst

Submitted by MgoBlueprint on May 3rd, 2018 at 12:26 PM

Bleacher Report's NFL Draft Lead Writer Matt Miller posted this quote from scouts regarding Maurice Hurst. Any thoughts? 



"—Raiders "Irresponsible" for Drafting Maurice Hurst

And finally, this one is shocking. After the draft ended on Saturday—and even during our Bleacher Report live stream coverage—I was asking if Michigan defensive tackle Maurice Hurst was going to be drafted. Hurst was flagged at the combine for a heart condition but was later allowed to participate at the Michigan pro day. If the Wolverines felt he was healthy, why did he fall so far in the draft?

I spoke to over 10 scouts, coaches and executives regarding Hurst. One, in a heated rant, labeled the selection "irresponsible" by the Raiders because of Hurst's heart condition (which hasn't been publicly shared) and hoped the talented defender would "never put a f--king helmet on again in his life."


That sentiment was echoed many times over, with one head coach adding, "Only the Raiders would draft a guy who could literally die on the field from a known condition.""



May 3rd, 2018 at 12:45 PM ^

He was cleared by doctors before playing at M and he was cleared again by doctors from UM and Harvard before participating in M's pro day. If I'm not mistaken, he will also have to be cleared before playing each season in the NFL. It's a safe bet that Oakland had their doctors test him and then concluded that he will be eligible to play next year.


May 3rd, 2018 at 3:46 PM ^

Every team has their own doctors who review theses cases and give their opinion. No coach is going to take a guy if your own doctor says he should not play. It does not matter if there is a different opinion, you go with the the recommendations from your own doctors. Obviously, the Oakland doctors agreed with Harvard and UM doctors. Not sure why everyone is getting upset over this...


May 3rd, 2018 at 3:18 PM ^

Does anyone here have a feeling for steriod use in the pro's versus college?  

If I'm not mistaken, steriods are bad for your heart. And at least in the past (the 80's according to wikipedia), steriod use was virtually required among defensive linemen in the NFL.  I know there's supposedly been a crackdown, but how much of that is just for show?

Is it possible that Michigan's and Harvard's doctors cleared Hurst for playing football, but the NFL doctors, with the understanding that NFL defense linemen pretty much all have to use steriods, are quite reasonably saying that the combination of intense exertion and anabolic steriods would be fatal?


May 3rd, 2018 at 6:11 PM ^


Was it that stupid of a question?

I'm just trying to make sense of something that otherwise makes no sense at all.  Mo Hurst is a fantastic football player (and by all accounts a fantastic person) who you'd think NFL teams would love to have, and Michigan and Harvard cleared him to play.  

Clearly, NFL team doctors came to a different conclusion, almost uniformly.  It makes sense to wonder whether if there's some relevant difference between the NFL and college.


May 3rd, 2018 at 11:54 PM ^

Yes, it was THAT stupid of a question. You think at least 31 different GROUPS of team physicians know of the rampant steroid use in the NFL and 1) none of that becomes public knowledge and 2) they factor it into their medical decisions regardless of whether a player uses or not? 


May 3rd, 2018 at 4:01 PM ^

When I was in college (a little over a decade ago) a classmate of mine whose brother played for the Seahwarks wrote a paper and a did a presentation on steriod use in the NFL. His anamous survey from Seahawks players at the time estimated that 80% of the NFL was using human growth hormone.


May 3rd, 2018 at 4:08 PM ^

PED use (steroids are PEDS, but not all PEDS are steroids, and the side effects are not all the same) is a lot more sophisticated than people would care to believe and is almost certainly widespread in the NFL and in college. 

It is unlikely that this fact has anything at all to do with NFL medical assessments of Hurst's condition. 


May 3rd, 2018 at 12:32 PM ^

Either scouts/GMs know something we don't or they were all fooled by rumors because as far as I know, he was cleared by doctors at a world renown hospital to play and he wants to play.


May 3rd, 2018 at 5:37 PM ^

I’ve watched a little nfl over the last year, and it didn’t look like they followed concussion protocol very well. We already know about their doctors giving players pain drugs during games so they make it through the games. I think all go with the opinions of doctors at um or harvard over these nfl jokers any day of the week. Raiders got the steal of the draft.


May 4th, 2018 at 4:14 AM ^

that's what seems odd, here. The league that fights the CDE stuff so hard, strongly encourages playing through pain, health of the player be damned - is almost unanimous in its opposition to clearing Hurst. It isn't as if he's a borderline player - he's a first round talent. Something is off.


May 3rd, 2018 at 12:33 PM ^

and not a single opinion from an actual medical expert. NFL scouts. coaches and executives have a hard enough time being competent at their own job.


May 3rd, 2018 at 1:46 PM ^

Without knowing his condition, I'm guessing this was an echo-chamber.  Also football people aren't always the smartest cookies so someone says something about a heart condition "that could cause him to die!" and it gets repeated over and over.  If he was cleared, it could be a much less severe form of some condition which doesn't mean he instantly dies ala Hank Gathers or Reggie Lewis but maybe someone they have to continue to monitor every year and AT SOME POINT he can't go on.  But seriously this is very odd and confusing.


May 3rd, 2018 at 12:38 PM ^

Regardless of what the medical report is, what about Mo's say?  He's not 40, but he's a grown man.  If he's well educated on his circumstances and he wants to play, then why not?  The Raiders are somehow responsible for Mo's choices now?


May 3rd, 2018 at 12:47 PM ^

You could argue it would be irresponsible if a player was not cleared, and that was known to all parties, but the player still wanted to play anyway. But in this case, no, assuming we're working with the same knowledge of the situation.

It's also a bit silly when you consider the whole sport has existed in spite of evolving degrees of safety irresponsibility and risk to players' health. To single out a cleared player for a heart condition while sending the troops out for brain damage is silly.


May 4th, 2018 at 4:26 AM ^

they already minimized a lot of their financial risk by leaving him to go so late in the draft. So the only thing left seems to be their concern for him medically. But if highly reputable doctors have cleared him on that count - what, then? Make a huge issue out of this to cover your ass for not having selected him for your team when he represents the Raiders as a pro-bowler? That's all I can think of and it's weak, because, well, the others could have just selected him.

There doesn't seem to be any explanation for this.

So I'm going with incompetence!


May 3rd, 2018 at 12:40 PM ^

I have heard here in Cleveland Hurst was taken completely off their board out of fear of the potential PR & legal disaster that could potentially occur if Hurst was to suffer a cardiac incident.   I know the Browns at one point had Hurst targeted for one of their high 2nd round picks.  

I think it's not unlike the situation with Chris Bosh in the NBA.  He wants to play, has found physcians that will clear him but nobody in the NBA will touch him out of fear of having a Len Bias situation on their hands.

Not saying it's right.  But the fear is definitely out there.


May 3rd, 2018 at 1:07 PM ^

Even if the odds of Hurst suffering an on-field cardiac incident are "1 in 1,000,000" --- most NFL teams simply aren't willing to take that risk.  They don't want to be known as the team that had a player die, a player who already had some sort of pre-existing condition.

As you said, it's not necessarily right.  Anyone could theoretically die on-field during any NFL game - it's a violent game and the risks for everyone who plays in the NFL are always non-zero. 

But tht's the NFL in 2018.  Mostly ignore the long-term threats (CTE), but be overly worried about the potential of a short-term/immediate incident.


May 4th, 2018 at 12:56 AM ^

by the Lions team doctor, Rams team doctor and NOLA team doctor until NOLA detected a more serious heart condition. Fairley played about 6-7 years before he was forced to retire.

That's the biggest thing about Mo Hurst. It's the team doctors clearing him for football. Michigan/Harvard doctors matters little to them because NFL teams rely on them to clear players for activities.


May 3rd, 2018 at 1:33 PM ^

He was not only not cleared for play by team doctors, but also by an independent panel of doctors agreed to by the NBA and the players association. This independent panel was required in order for the Heat to get back about $25 million from the insurance policy on his contract. Presumably if the insurance company felt that panel was a sham, they would have protested as well.

We don’t know the full details of Hurst, but it seems he WAS cleared by independent doctors, unlike Bosh. Now it’s possible that 31 teams’ staff cardiologists disagreed with the assessment done by the multiple teams Hurst has seen, and the Raiders doctors were the only ones that agreed with Hurst’s diagnoses. But more likely we have a bunch of front office and PR staff that think they know more than highly trained specialists.

yossarians tree

May 3rd, 2018 at 1:43 PM ^

Sounds like another NFL collusion scenario. "Hey, we won't take him as long as nobody else does." If they're pissed its because Hurst is going to be in their backfield all game long and they'll have to explain why they didn't take him.The Michael Sam thing was similar, only they agreed that somebody had to take him, give him a "fair" shot, and then release him because he wasn't good enough. Billionaires colluding...shocking, I know.


May 3rd, 2018 at 3:48 PM ^

It's one thing for GMs to not want to take the risk and pass as a's another entirely to pretend you know better than the highly trained experts in the medical and then call the Raiders "irresponsible" as if they have some moral high ground for not drafting the guy. You don't. You're just upset a guy you wanted but passed on due to a potential health risk was taken by somebody else who is willing to take the think that if you can't have him nobody should. That's just jealousy and bitterness, not some altruistic "player safety" BS.



May 3rd, 2018 at 12:48 PM ^

This has nothing to do with Hurst's actual health or various teams' concern therefore.  It's (1) a liabiltiy issue, and (2) an optics issue.  Personally, I think #2 is driving the day.  It's kind of a bad look if someone ups and dies on you. 

Imagine, if you will, the completely and  entirely hypothetical scenario in which you put in a player who you know, or should know has a "concussion," and he goes out and gets injured further or, heaven forbid, dies.  Imagine what would be said in such situations.  If you can't, I'm sure a simple site search for "Morris" will do the trick.  From a business perspective, there is absolutely 0 upside to this.