Sarina@sarina
I am attending *Scout School* for the next few days before @RamsNFL Training Camp starts.

Sarina@sarina
Here is a breakdown of the Rams scouting department: 3 pro scouts, 7 college area scouts, 2 scouting assistants and 7 over-the-top scouts. Their backgrounds range from coaching… to being former NFL players.

What amazes me is the streamlined approach from the top down. From the coaching staff to the scouts, everyone uses streamlined language/terminology to make sure everyone is on the same page.

It comes down to three non-physical traits when it comes to the Rams… If a player is passionate about football, if they are smart, and if they are instinctive.

It seems to me, tight ends are graded/watched differently from other teams considering the complex offense the Rams run.

Actually, Robert Mueller Was Awesome
History will show that he had one big goal, and nailed it.

RENATO MARIOTTI

Renato Mariotti is the Legal Affairs Columnist for POLITICO Magazine. He is a former federal prosecutor and host of the “On Topic” podcast.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/25/robert-mueller-hearing-was-awesome-227478?fbclid=IwAR0m0FnWpRh-OKI3uTETf9oalO9FSuieGGBU6vtDH0pmEKzevdFoG_8VAf0

Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony Wednesday has been described as “excruciatingly awkward,” “confused,” “struggling” and “a stammering, stuttering mess.”

I saw something completely different. From my perspective, after six hours of testimony, it was the 74-year-old career prosecutor and law enforcement officer who won the day. It wasn’t that close.

Tasked with overseeing the most high-profile investigation of our time, Mueller managed to complete the investigation without appearing to have a partisan agenda, with both sides embracing him at times. Even Trump said he acted “honorably”—before he turned on Mueller as “conflicted” and partisan—and touted “total exoneration” soon after Mueller concluded his work. Mueller’s down-the-middle, leak-free handling of the high-stakes investigation was an object lesson in professionalism.

And Wednesday’s performance was no different.

Mueller didn’t want to testify, for good reason. He had done his work already. As a prosecutor, he had to ensure he stayed detached from the political process, presenting his findings in a manner that did not make it appear he was choosing a side or advancing an agenda. One slip of the tongue could be used to undermine his team’s work.

In the long view, the verdict of history depends most of all on Mueller being seen as nonpartisan, measured and above the fray—an operator whose work is unimpeachable and can be relied on (now, or after Trump’s term, or years from now) as a bulletproof statement of fact. So all the little details of the case that members were trying to ferret out pale in comparison to his ability to maintain that status and be seen as a reliable agent of impartiality. During the hearing, that was clearly his goal. In doing that, he succeeded, and history can thank him for it.

It was clear from the start he knew Democrats wanted to use him as a prop to bring the findings of his report to life as part of a push for an impeachment inquiry. Mueller went out of his way to avoid regurgitating the contents of the report, wary of creating sound bites that could be used to suggest he supported impeachment. For instance, when Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) asked him whether his language referring to a constitutional process to “formally accuse a president of wrongdoing” was a reference to impeachment, he refused to admit the obvious.

Mueller did that all day long. He refused to answer leading questions whenever answering the question might draw him too close to the political fight, force him to say things that could spur controversy, or cause him to veer outside the four corners of the report. Mueller wanted to go no further than his report and he rarely did so, despite both sides egging him on. He swatted away Republican attempts to elicit answers about the origins of his probe as readily as he ignored Democratic attempts to get him to make their case against Trump.

His monotonal yes and no answers might not have made for the most dramatic viewing, but they weren’t without effect. In five minutes, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff walked Mueller through the most damning details of Volume 1 of his report. Mueller’s answers were short—“that did occur,” “accurate,” “that is correct”—but what he affirmed was that Russia engaged in a systematic effort to help Trump win in 2016, that Trump and his campaign welcomed Russian aid, and that Trump lied to the American people about his business dealings in Russia.

When Mueller wanted to say more, he did. He described in detail the threat posed by the Russian attack on our electoral process, testifying that “they’re doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign.” He warned that “many more countries are developing the capability to replicate what the Russians had done.” When Mueller had the rare opportunity to testify about matters that were not partisan—matters that should concern all Americans—he testified freely and strongly.

At times, Mueller faced harsh questioning from Republicans who lashed him and his team as biased or worse. His calm demeanor was another sign of his professionalism. It would have been easy for Mueller to fight back—he has in previous appearances, after all—but that would have pulled him into the fray. It was not weakness but rather quiet strength that caused Mueller to do nothing more than calmly reply, “I take your question,” in response to GOP Congressman Louie Gohmert’s hyperbolic charge that he “perpetuated injustice.”

The hesitation you saw in Mueller before he answered questions was the face of a man who was choosing his words carefully. He played it safe, like a football team running out the clock. His constant desire to double-check his report and to refer members of Congress to the report itself was motivated by a desire to ensure that each word of his testimony was accurate. He had no incentive to hurry, knowing it would be hard for members to challenge him in a five-minute time span if he took his time.

Mueller had to be careful and precise because every word he said would be dissected. When he agreed with Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) that the reason he did not “indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president,” many took that to mean that Mueller had affirmatively concluded that he would have indicted Trump if he could do so. Mueller clarified that point in the afternoon session. It was a rare misstep and he knew he had to fix it without regard to how it might be perceived by either side.

Even Mueller’s nonanswers were carefully considered. Mueller refused to answer whether he believes Attorney General William Barr’s letter purporting to summarize his report is accurate. The letter was technically accurate but highly misleading, and an answer from Mueller that the letter was accurate would have left the false impression that the thrust of the letter were true. Mueller also refused to answer whether Trump or his son took the Fifth, presumably because commenting on a defendant’s silence can be legally problematic.

Through his careful answers, Mueller was able to thread a needle, staking out very nuanced and careful legal positions without seriously being tested by the members who questioned him. For example, Mueller refused to make any decision as to whether there is sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstructing justice.

Mueller’s decision not to reach a prosecutorial judgment as to obstruction flowed from the DOJ’s policy against indicting a sitting president. Because Mueller couldn’t indict Trump, he felt it would be unfair to Trump if he reached a conclusion that Trump would be unable to challenge in court. But if Mueller merely reached no conclusion, that could leave the false impression that he found no evidence that Trump committed a crime. So Mueller famously said that he was “unable” to state that Trump “clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,” and thus his report “does not exonerate” Trump. This may sound confusing to a layperson, but it is a very careful approach that permitted Mueller to be as fair as possible to Trump under the circumstances.

No one had ever publicly asked Mueller about this very nuanced but unprecedented approach. Many argue that Mueller should have stated his conclusion, and in any event, it’s unclear why he chose the “does not exonerate” language instead of merely making clear that his nondecision does not mean there is not enough evidence to charge Trump.

But both sides failed to meaningfully probe Mueller’s reasoning on this key issue. Republicans criticized and grilled him as to “exoneration,” but they had to be careful not to give Mueller an opportunity to refer to the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president. Lurking in the background was the reality that Mueller found “substantial” evidence to prove each of the elements of obstruction of justice. Pushing him to explain himself would be bad for Trump. Yet Democrats could not get him to do so either because they were in no position to push him to do something he was unwilling to do.

So Mueller got to say what he wanted to say, which is that there is “substantial” evidence to support counts of obstruction, without being forced to say that he concluded Trump obstructed justice. Despite hours of questioning by dozens of members of Congress, Mueller was never backed into a corner or forced to explain the most important legal decision he made.

Even if some think Mueller has lost a step since he last appeared before Congress six years ago, he still looked a step or two ahead of most of his questioners on Wednesday. Most importantly, he appeared above the fray, cautious, and fair in the face of bitter partisan rancor. That is what we should expect from prosecutors, and it is the legacy that Mueller leaves behind.

How uncensored we going? 😂 https://t.co/OQYP5ORkIg

— 𝒥𝒾𝓂 𝐸𝓋𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓉𝓉 (@Jim_Everett) July 25, 2019

A "Super Bowl Hangover" for the @RamsNFL? Just the opposite, says @PSchrags.

"The way they're being talked about, it's like they didn't even make the Super Bowl. I think they got better, but no one wants to hear that. Everyone's focused on the negative. For McVay, that's great." pic.twitter.com/7pd4gv7G77

— GMFB (@gmfb) July 25, 2019

Meet Nancy Goodman.

She called two Black women at an upscale restaurant in Raleigh “stupid niggers.”

It was filmed.

When the media came to her house she said she wasn’t sorry and would say it again because it’s true.

America. 2019. https://t.co/74rzZHlfvK

— Shaun King (@shaunking) July 25, 2019

‘I’ve just got to come out and compete and try and earn a spot on the team’ – Gaines
DT Greg Gaines addresses the media after arriving at Rams Camp.

https://www.therams.com/video/earn-a-spot-on-the-team-gaines

Henderson: ‘Whatever they ask me to do, I’m going to do it’
RB Darrell Henderson addresses the media after arriving at Rams Camp.

https://www.therams.com/video/henderson-whatever-they-ask-me-to-do-im-going-to-do-it

Long Jr. on what it’s like to be playing back home in SoCal
CB David Long Jr. addresses the media after arriving to Rams Camp.

https://www.therams.com/video/long-jr-on-playing-back-home-in-southern-california

Dakota Allen explains the advice he’s received heading into training camp
LB Dakota Allen addresses the media after arriving at Rams Camp.

https://www.therams.com/video/dakota-allen-advice-heading-into-training-camp

And so it begins pic.twitter.com/oWxBdFMnFs

— Vincent Bonsignore (@VinnyBonsignore) July 24, 2019

Vincent Bonsignore@VinnyBonsignore
Goff did not seem worried or concerned about a new contract as he goes into last year of his rookie deal. Sense is everything will work out on that front

Joel Corry@corryjoel
No need for any really good young pass rusher to sign for less than $20M per year with strong guarantees. Frank Clark helped define the market at $20.8M per year with $62.305M in guarantees ($43.805M fully guaranteed at signing).

==

Brandin Cooks has generated the most receiving yards on deep targets since 2016! pic.twitter.com/r8I0vAwagC

— PFF (@PFF) July 24, 2019

Vincent Bonsignore@VinnyBonsignore
Things can change, but sense I’m getting is it’s doubtful that #Rams have an interest in recently released – available – ILB Mason Foster and DT Mike Daniels. They feel good about where they are at those positions heading into camp.

View this post on Instagram

Grind ain’t goin slow down camp is almost here @j.aggabao 💪🏽 @mambasportsacademy #campready #yeararoundwithit

A post shared by Aaron Donald (@aarondonald99) on Jul 22, 2019 at 5:09pm PDT

==

View this post on Instagram

When u put the body of work in it always pays off at the end #hardworkpaysoff 📸 ❌❌ @coryg412 @210ths

A post shared by Aaron Donald (@aarondonald99) on Jul 13, 2019 at 6:47am PDT

A fact, a piece of fiction, and a word of caution about the reality of NFL training camp

Amy Trask

https://theathletic.com/1090222/2019/07/23/a-fact-a-piece-of-fiction-and-a-word-of-caution-about-the-reality-of-nfl-training-camp/

As training camp kicks off this week for each team, former Raiders CEO Amy Trask offers some wisdom about what really goes on during this prelude to the season.

FACT: Dreams die at training camp.

Young men who have been dreaming of careers in the league may never play a down in an NFL game. Men who have played and worked at this for years may not make the final roster. Whether a player is at what he hopes will be the beginning of his career or trying to fight off what looks to be the conclusion of one, dreams will end and careers will end. Informing a player that he will not make the team should be done in a manner that reflects an understanding that this may be crushing news. Ending a player’s career should be handled not only in a professional manner but in a caring one. Players are men, not commodities. Dashing a dream or ending a player’s career should not be fodder for a television show.

FICTION: Training camp is hard for coaches and team staff.

Over the course of my decades in the league I heard umpteen coaches and others on staff state that “no one understands how hard this is.” Each time I heard that I thought: you are being paid a six or seven figure salary, you are standing outside on a football field in the Napa Valley (earlier in my career, in Oxnard, not too far from the Pacific Ocean), you are provided a room (in some cases a suite) at a beautiful hotel, you are provided every meal (and snacks!) and the team takes into account your dietary wishes and requests, you are provided a car (which is gassed and washed for you), and you get to perform your job in shorts and a t-shirt. I’m not suggesting that many of these jobs aren’t difficult. Of course there is pressure and stress associated with them. But let’s put this in perspective: hard is when you are a single parent working multiple jobs to support a family; hard is when you are earning minimum wage for maximum effort; hard is when you are serving the country in a hostile environment and know that at any moment you may be fired upon or step on a landmine. It is a privilege to work in the NFL.

A WORD OF CAUTION: Be careful when reaching conclusions.

Every year, teams and fans look forward to the start of training camp and to a new season in which every team ostensibly has the same likelihood of success. This annual sense of optimism is not fortuitous; it is borne of the league goal of parity: the belief that in any given season, any team can win.

As personnel and in some instances coaching moves are the subject of intense debate and analysis throughout the offseason, there is often a rush to judgment as training camp gets underway.

It is certainly fair to draw some conclusions from training camp practices. However, not all you see (or don’t see) during those practices paints an accurate picture of what to expect when the season starts. So be careful not to rush to judgment — training camps tell us some but not all things about teams.

Case in point: Raiders Training Camp, Napa Valley, 2006 — Throughout camp, numerous coaches and player personnel staff touted our pass protection. The praise was effusive. I heard that our pass protection would be the strength of our team and that our quarterback would have all day to throw.

Then came our opening game: Monday night football, San Diego at Oakland. Our quarterback was sacked 9 times. I’m fairly confident that had I been lined up at defensive end for the Chargers I would have gotten at least one sack. We went on to give up more sacks that season (72) than any other team. In fact, the team which was second in that category gave up 18 fewer sacks (54) than we did.

When these bold proclamations were made and these predictions were shared with me, I asked Al Davis (who, by the way, made no such proclamation and offered no such prediction) “how can we tell?” I went on to note that I didn’t believe we had enough data to reach such sweeping conclusions. Not only were our quarterbacks clad as they always were at practice in “no touch” colored jerseys, but it also appeared to me that we were blowing plays dead far more quickly than we traditionally did. I didn’t think we were letting plays develop long enough to get a real sense of the strength (or lack thereof) of our pass protection. He replied to me as he often did: “aw f***.”

This example of a rush to judgment at training camp is not intended as an indictment of our offensive line alone as many factors contribute to pass protection (or lack thereof): offensive line, tight ends, quarterback play, running back blocking assistance, etc. As is the case in most every aspect of the game, many pieces and parts work together.

This example is, however, a reminder of the danger of drawing sweeping or firm conclusions based on training camp alone.

https://t.co/ggwXAEge8k pic.twitter.com/DzBiwWtzrc

— SeattleRams (@seattlerams_nfl) July 24, 2019

==

With this grand news, who wants to see Cooper Kupp’s first TD catch?

What am I saying, of course everyone wants to… pic.twitter.com/fohMHl7AfP

— SeattleRams (@seattlerams_nfl) July 24, 2019

Police officer Philip Brailsford executed Daniel Shaver as he crawled towards him on his hands & knees, begging for his life. He was tried & acquitted of murder. Now, news that he will get a disability pension because he says he has PTSD from the incident. https://t.co/kgpAsidpo9

— Rebecca J. Kavanagh (@DrRJKavanagh) July 23, 2019