Here is an example from that article about how national sports writers often do not know individual teams as well as well-informed fans of that team:
At safety, the writer says, the Rams will
rely on rookies and recent Day 3 fliers for a majority of their defensive snaps.
No. It's not "rookies plural" at safety. None of the rookie safeties get much in the way of mention from camp observers (including above all reporters). It's 2nd through 4th year players like Fuller and Lake. As we know and the writer evidently does not, Fuller was a previous starter and missed 2022 with injuries.
In terms of "Day 3 fliers"? Wow that's ignorant. Not the "day 3" part, it's the "fliers" part. The Rams have a good record with Day 3 picks at safety, including recent starters like Fuller and Scott. In fact the Rams have a "method" when it comes to picking safeties on Day 3 (ie. there are things they specifically look for) and not only has it worked so far, as it turns out the Day 3 guys have looked better than their Day 2 guys (Rapp and Burgess).
Will Lake or Yeast replace Scott? Could very well be--early indications are solid.
Now does the guy have a point about this untested defense, which is replacing anywhere from 7 to 8 starters? Yes you can't know how good that defense will be yet, though it's not true that it's mostly green rookies (it's a lot of 2nd through 4th year players with playing experience). But in general, overall, you can't argue too much when someone downgrades the defense this early.
But that comment about safeties was just ignorant.
.