Rams think versatile draft pick Terrell Burgess can play corner or safety

GARY KLEIN

https://www.latimes.com/sports/rams/story/2020-06-22/rams-think-draft-pick-terrell-burgess-can-play-corner-safety

As he went through the NFL’s predraft process, Terrell Burgess spoke with Rams representatives multiple times. They met at the Senior Bowl in Alabama and at the NFL scouting combine in Indianapolis. They visited again virtually during a videoconference call.

Left undetermined after their conversations was what position Burgess might play if the Rams selected him: Safety or slot cornerback? Or both?

“There was no clarification as to where,” Burgess said after the Rams chose him in the third round. “I’m just excited to be able to go in there and see what I can do to help the team win.”

Burgess began learning the Rams’ system during the virtual offseason program the team completed in early June. But coach Sean McVay, new defensive coordinator Brandon Staley, cornerbacks coach Aubrey Pleasant and safeties coach Ejiro Evero must wait until training camp workouts begin in late July to see just what they’ve got in Burgess.

It is clear, however, that the Rams chose the 5-foot-11, 202-pound Burgess because of his versatility.

Under Staley, the Rams secondary could feature multiple players in hybrid positions. Staley has indicated that star Jalen Ramsey will be used as cornerback, safety and linebacker in various situations.

Safeties John Johnson and Taylor Rapp demonstrated their versatility in their three and one pro seasons, respectively.

Burgess might provide more flexibility.

After playing at San Marcos High, he went to Utah as a receiver and defensive back. He moved to defense full-time after his redshirt freshman season in 2015. Over the next four seasons, he evolved from special teams and part-time starter into a versatile cornerstone and leader as a senior.

Last season, Utah ranked second nationally in total defense, according to the NCAA’s website. Burgess was one of seven Utes players selected in the draft.

“This guy played everywhere for them,” Staley said.

Now Burgess will work to find roles with a Rams team coming off last season’s 9-7 record.

After missing the playoffs for the first time in three seasons, McVay overhauled much of his staff and the roster. Among the changes: He hired the 37-year-old Staley to replace Wade Phillips, an NFL coach since the mid-1970s.

The Rams let linebacker Cory Littleton, edge rusher Dante Fowler and rotational safety Marqui Christian leave as free agents. They cut linebacker Clay Matthews, and they declined to pick up an option on slot cornerback Nickell Robey-Coleman.

The Rams signed edge rusher Leonard Floyd and defensive lineman A’Shawn Robinson and then used four of nine draft picks to select defensive players, including Burgess, outside linebacker Terrell Lewis, safety Jordan Fuller and inside linebacker Clay Johnston.

Robey-Coleman was the slot cornerback and an occasional starter the previous three seasons, so his departure to the Philadelphia Eagles creates opportunity for Burgess and others.

McVay said versatile safeties such as Jimmie Ward of the San Francisco 49ers have demonstrated their value with the ability to also cover slot receivers. Burgess fits that mold.

“He’s smart, he picks things up quickly, he’s got all those intangibles that you’re looking for,” McVay said, “and then he’s got the make-up athletically, so there’s a lot of things you like and the more you can do the more of a weapon we can utilize you as.”

Burgess and McVay credited recently retired Eric Weddle for helping Burgess land with the Rams. The six-time Pro Bowl safety was a standout for the Utes and remains close to his college program.

“It’s nice to have somebody that went to my school, went on to the league, is kind of from Southern California and be able to be kind of a mentor for me,” Burgess said.

Burgess is looking forward to playing for the Rams less than a two-hour drive from where he grew up.

I know that my mom’s really excited that I get to stay home,” he said. “My two sisters still live here in San Diego.

“My brother lives out of state, but I’m sure he’ll come back home every time I have a home game to come watch the game. They’re definitely very excited that they can just drive up and see me.”

Do Americans support defunding police? It depends how you ask the question.
A new poll shows a majority of Americans support redirecting funds from police to other services.

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/23/21299118/defunding-the-police-minneapolis-budget-george-floyd

It’s undeniable that the protests that have swept the country in the month since George Floyd’s killing at the hands of police have changed Americans’ attitudes.

We know that 76 percent of Americans say racism is a big problem now, up from just 51 percent in 2015. We know that white Americans, in particular, are talking and reading about racism at an unprecedented level.

But there’s been a debate as to how much Americans really support systemic change, especially when it comes to the police. In recent weeks, calls for defunding police departments have gotten more public attention. Specifics of those calls vary, but in general, defunding police means shifting money from policing toward other priorities like mental health care and housing assistance.

The goal, for advocates, is to replace an institution with a long history of violence against Black Americans and other people of color with an array of solutions designed to meet all people’s needs and actually keep them safe. “We need to scrutinize our state and local budgets, educate ourselves about what police do versus what we need to be and feel safe, and realign the budget and our social programs to better serve our public safety needs,” Georgetown University law professor Christy Lopez told Vox’s Sean Illing.

While calls to defund police forces have gotten a lot of coverage in recent weeks, they’ve also been met with skepticism and even confusion, with some wondering whether the American public — especially white Americans — will ever get on board with the idea. And polling up until now has shown that majorities of Americans oppose the idea of defunding the police.

However, a new poll conducted by the research firm PerryUndem shows that when it comes to public opinion, the way people talk about police funding may matter. The poll, conducted among 1,115 adults from June 15 to 17, didn’t ask if people supported or opposed defunding police departments. But it did ask how they felt about redirecting some taxpayer funds to other agencies, so that they, instead of police, could respond to some emergencies. And respondents were receptive: For example, 72 percent of respondents said they supported reallocating some police funding to help mental health experts, rather than armed officers, respond to mental health emergencies.

Some of the change may simply have to do with time — among white Americans in particular, there’s been a steep learning curve in recent weeks when it comes to police violence and proposals to eliminate it. Americans have watched as Minneapolis, Minnesota, where George Floyd was killed, announced plans to dismantle its police department, and other cities like Los Angeles announced funding cuts to police. The concept of defunding, as well as the language around it, has been debated in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and elsewhere.

“People’s understanding is evolving literally every day,” Tresa Undem, a partner at PerryUndem, told Vox. But she said, “when there’s very little knowledge” about a concept, “that’s when question wording really has an effect on responses.”

Defunding the police isn’t a new concept to the many activists who have been advocating for it for decades. But it is new to millions of Americans who have been inspired by the recent protests to pay more attention to systemic racism and police brutality. And the PerryUndem polling suggests that, although the idea of defunding the police has been seen as unpopular, some of its component ideas actually attract widespread support.

When it comes to support for police funding cuts, how you frame the issue matters

Attitudes toward the police have shifted considerably in recent months, especially among white Americans. For example, in 2016, just 25 percent of white Americans said that the police were more likely to use excessive force on Black suspects. After this year’s protests began, that figure jumped to 49 percent.

But there have been a lot of questions about how far those attitude changes go. Majorities of Americans support reforms like banning chokeholds, for example, but many activists say those reforms don’t go far enough, since many departments have already adopted them and violence continues.

Instead, many organizers around the country — along with some elected officials — are calling for defunding the police, dismantling police departments, and exploring other ways to keep communities safe. The idea of defunding the police hasn’t gotten as much support in recent polls as other changes; for example, just 27 percent of Americans supported it in a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted June 8-10.

Even when pollsters have asked about cutting funding to police and redirecting it to social services, many Americans balk. In an ABC/Ipsos poll conducted June 10-11, 60 percent of Americans opposed shifting funding from police departments to mental health, housing, and education programs, while just 39 percent supported such a plan.

But the PerryUndem researchers asked the question a little differently: “Right now,” their survey read, “taxpayer dollars for police departments go to all kinds of things police officers are responsible for — from writing up traffic accident reports for insurance companies to resolving disputes between neighbors to investigating murders.”

Respondents were then asked if they supported having some of those taxpayer dollars — and the responsibility that goes along with them — directed elsewhere instead. Most said yes.

In addition to the 72 percent who said they supported redirecting money from police departments to pay for mental health experts, 70 percent said they would support having taxpayer dollars reallocated to “pay for a health care professional to go to a medical emergency, instead of an armed police officer.” And 66 percent said they supported reallocating funds to “pay for a social worker to respond to a call about a homeless person who is loitering, instead of an armed police officer.”

The poll also asked Americans if they would support an option short of full defunding, in which “police could focus on crimes like burglary and murder, and other service providers could focus on emergency calls about addiction, mental illness, and homelessness.” A full 61 percent of respondents supported this option, and just 16 percent opposed it (22 percent said they were unsure).

The differences between the PerryUndem results and previous polling are especially striking among white respondents. Black Americans tend to support police defunding at higher rates than other groups — in the ABC poll, for example, 57 percent of Black respondents supported defunding, compared with just 26 percent of white respondents. But in the PerryUndem poll, a full 67 percent of white respondents supported redirecting funds to send a mental health professional to a mental health emergency, and 64 percent supported reallocating money to send a social worker to a call involving a homeless person (87 percent and 71 percent of Black respondents, respectively, supported these changes).

Some of the differences between the PerryUndem poll and others likely have to do with language. The phrase “defunding the police” has been unpopular in many polls, and the concept of reallocating funding, while more popular, still hasn’t always gotten the support that PerryUndem saw. But when ABC/Ipsos asked about reallocation, the question was framed more generally, in terms of programs, and emphasized the loss to police: “Do you support or oppose reducing the budget of the police department in your community, even if that means fewer police officers, if the money is shifted to programs related to mental health, housing, and education?”

PerryUndem, by contrast, framed the question specifically around who would respond to certain emergencies. Undem believes this matters. “When something is brand new,” like public understanding of police defunding, she said, “the more descriptive the better.”

The PerryUndem poll isn’t the only one in recent weeks to find support for shifting at least some police funding. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted June 9-10 found that among people who were familiar with proposals to move police funding into better officer training, anti-homelessness programs, mental health services, and other initiatives, 76 percent supported them.

And in general, the debate around how to reform, change, or replace police departments in America is still being defined. In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 51 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat familiar with proposals to shift police funding — a majority, but a slim one, with lots of room for learning.

Perhaps this is what is most telling about these polls: Many Americans, especially white people, seem to be open to learning and changing their beliefs. In the PerryUndem poll, for example, 52 percent of white respondents said they want to learn about how laws and systems in America may be racist. And 64 percent said they want to learn which police reforms have worked or not worked.

And in the past month, they seem to have taken their quest for education seriously, at least by some measures. Books about anti-racism dominate bestseller lists (though some have pointed out the limits of reading alone), and protest organizers are reporting a large number of white people getting involved in demonstrations, many for the first time.

All this suggests that while the phrase “defund the police” may poll poorly now, the PerryUndem data is a reminder that none of this is fixed. In fact, the country may be entering a rare period of open-mindedness on issues of racism and policing, in which people’s opinions and allegiances could be evolving — and they may be willing to think seriously about big changes they would have dismissed just a few weeks ago.

zn wrote:

From a left/progressive point of view they overlap so much that often it hardly matters whether they are presumably different or not.

But.

You asked in another thread what leftists/progressives say being left or progressive means. Or is. That question deserves consideration. This is as good a place as any to answer it.

In time.

It’s a big question. Deserves a thought-out response.

I make a run at this but rather than give a philosophical deep grounding I will just go with some social and policy issues that I think tend to attract left/progressive attention.

First, one central ideal of any left/progressive view is that it does not accept the idea there is some transcendent norm outside of human action within history that determines how things are. We made the world we have and it does not have to be this way…it can be other ways. What are the principles of change? To promote a genuinely democratic system that benefits people.

That means no corporate dominance of elections, policies, or (to drive this all the way home) what counts as acceptable thinking. The corporate world is a powerful interest group and when it gets what it wants it diminishes what the rest of the population can have. The economic world should be ruled over by public interest, and not the population dominated by corporate interests. This includes things like protecting the environment at the cost of corporate wealth, developing sustainable and safer sources of energy, and providing universal health insurance at the cost of private interests and profits.

Neoliberalism needs to be strangled out of existence as a phony doctrine that only manages to feed the interests of the same ole same ole narrow money interests.

Labor should have a say in how businesses operate. Labor interests are starved at the expense of private profit-making and it should be exactly the other way around. There should at a minimum be basic obvious things such as sick leave, living wages, health care, and so on. Things the rest of the developed world has (which is why they quite rightly look upon us as some kind of disney-fied version of mordor.)

Both Republicans and Democrats are against these things because they are dominated by money–lobbyists, campaign donors, and so on. The ways in which they might differ are really never enough to overcome the ways in which they are both dominated by wealthy special interests. For example, both engage in widespread voter suppression. Democrats are no different from Republicans when it comes to that.

To me the parties are like 2 appalling alcoholic guardians of some poor kid, where one might be a little cooler when it comes to some things (like it uses less obvious racist language) but is ultimately still a bad alcoholic guardian.

It also means that those who are excluded from the full benefit of public good should be included. No “lesser share” because of gender, race, ethnicity, or sexuality or any of that. Excluding people on the basis of their gender or race or so on means you have a social system that denies rights to many (if not most) of its population, which means there is no such thing as rights (rights are universal or they do not exist, if rights are not universal they are not rights at all but just some privileges of the dominant few).

The news and other sources of information should not be dominated by a small coterie of wealthy owners who, again–as the wealthy–are just a special interest group.

Foreign policy should not be based on the tyranny of controlling resources and propping up those places that are allied with us in doing that. Foreign policy should also promote democracy–which it absolutely has not for decades–and that includes things like curtailing Israeli power over subject Palestinians. Among many many other examples.

The financial industry should be aggressively regulated. Nothing changed in the financial world since 2008 and the financial world can create another 2008 any day.

Education should be funded, social work should be funded to address poverty, the war on drugs should be ended as an ineffective sham that just fed the prison industry, policing needs to be fundamentally changed. Voting is an absolute right and cannot be tampered with. All of these things lead to greater power for people in general, greater rights, greater opportunities, and other things that distribute the benefits of a benign social system to the greatest number of people.

That’s a start.