Defensive tackle Maurice Hurst, a one-time potential high draft pick, fell to the fifth round before the Raiders selected him last week.

Hurst is known to have a heart condition that has not be publicly specified.

On Thursday, a respected draft analyst reported that several NFL personnel people and coaches felt the Raiders picking Hurst was “irresponsible.”


One was quoted as saying he hoped Hurst would “never put a (expletive) helmet on again in his life.”

I greatly respect Miller’s work. However, I disagree with the opinions of those who conclude Oakland or its doctors were irresponsible.

As a former head team physician, I can attest that the profession takes its duties of medical evaluation seriously and that doctors spend countless hours in Indianapolis (for the Combine and re-checks) examining players, then later reviewing reports and meeting with team management. I can’t say the medical team spends as much time as a scout does in player evaluations, but I can say upwards of a 100 hours of time are spent in this process each year.


And there are differences of medical opinions.

The explanation is simple.


One or more GMs may pass on a player for their team but another feels he can play. Similarly, medical evaluations can be gray rather than black and white.

Hurst played collegiately at Michigan and had UM doctors and Harvard doctors clear him. Clearly, some think he is fine to play. It seems true some teams removed Hurst from their draft board, but that doesn’t mean he can’t play football.

I don’t know what his heart condition is and, thus, do not know how I might have advised my team. But clearly the opinion is not unanimous.


I actually think it is not only unfair and inaccurate but also irresponsible for a scout to characterize the drafting as “irresponsible.” There is no way for a non-medical person to know.

As an orthopedic surgeon and physician, even I would rely on my primary care doctor and cardiology consultants to weigh in.

I do not see how a personnel person can make this proclamation. This opinion should carry the same weight as a team physician publicly criticizing Baker Mayfield as not worthy of the first pick in the draft.


The heart is really a pump.

The questions is whether the issue is myopathy (mechanical), arrythymia (electrical) or circulatory (plumbing). Depending on the type or cardiac condition, there may be treatments/fixes or mitigation. Until one knows whether it is the motor, wires, or pipes that are at issue on a hot water pump, you don’t throw it out without looking to fix it first.

It seems that Jon Gruden is seizing control of the Raiders building, but I have never seen a team flat out go against a hard recommendation from the medical staff.


Of course, teams have made decision to draft despite medical issues. But risk does not equate to “failure” or “can’t be allowed on the field.” Removing from ones draft board means not for us, but doesn’t mean a player can’t play.

Also, one team may be saying Hurst isn’t a good risk long term medically, but the Raiders may be saying he is worth a fifth-round level of risk.

Perhaps their intent is to monitor Hurst’s heart regularly and determine if he is safely able to safely play a few years.


Nick Fairley had a known heart condition, played six season with the Lions and Rams and even passed a physical to play one year in New Orleans before being ruled out with a heart issue by the same Saints doctors that initially passed him.

I am not saying the Fairley and Hurst cardiac issues are comparable, but if the Raiders can safely get six seasons out of Hurst, that would be a great return.

If the Raiders discover there is a risk of Hurst “droping dead” I would expect the doctors, team and his family would all rule him out. No money is worth that risk for a player – especially not fifth-round money.