Zooey wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

InvaderRam Moderator zn wrote: Could it be that that rubbed McV the wrong way? if this is true, then i would tend to criticize him for making this decision. i’m not saying this is true. but if it’s true. i don’t agree with it.

Yeah, you don’t get to be “rubbed the wrong way” if you are the coach, not by contract shit. He can get rubbed the wrong way about attitude towards coaching and teammates and effort and all that, but not by contract stuff. Whatever. This looks like an error to me, a bigger error than trading Woods which didn’t turn out to be all that bad in the end. But I dislike this one even more because of Jones’ youth and value. He was under contract for this year, and he would have played this year. So it’s a “value of Jones this year” vs. “value of the trade long term” equation, and I think Jones had more value to the Rams immediately than this trade does for the long term. That’s all. No biggie. I will root for the Rams just the same, but this doesn’t pencil out, imo.

I still feel something’s going on here, more than meets the eye. It’s nothing like not signing London Fletcher. But still…. And they kept 5 ILBs, an unusual number, which suggests they’re not all that certain about that position and the players they have. I agree that the coach should never act like he’s been “rubbed the wrong way,” but then, every once in a while, McV shows that he can have that kind of tendency, so it wouldn’t surprise me.

It could be something as simple as the Rams don’t want to keep a leader around who gripes about not getting an extension….and Jones did gripe a bit.

I know this is not one of those boards where a minor criticism of a popular coach can lead to death threats and outraged accustations of treason. Nevertheless let me quickly add that I rank McV very high as a coach overall. As you guys know. (I have residual trauma reactions from old poster wars so I reflexively feel compelled to add that I am a long way from being on the fire McVay! bandwagon………)

Billy_T wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

Zooey wrote:

Would they have got a 6th rounder for him anyway? Or something?

yeah. that’s what i want to know. cuz that would piss me off even more. even if speights is better than jones. then start both or keep one for depth. i want to understand why.

Wouldn’t they have received a comp pick based on his new salary with his new team? That means it could have been as high as a 3rd. I think a 4th was doable for a starting linebacker, on the cusp of being a pro bowler. At least a 5th. Oh, well. Hopefully, Jourdan will have some insights soon enough.

Jones while good at his role as a 2 down ILB, was a 2 down ILB. He really isn’t a cover guy and Shula has indicated he’s going to keep putting safeties in LB spots depending on the downs, as the Rams have before.

I wanted to see Speights at the other ILB spot alongside Jones, which (assuming he’s a good as he has looked so far) would fix a weakness in the front 7. Now they have Speights at the primary ILB spot and still have the weakness at the other ILB spot.

zn wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

so which is it? are the rams actively trying to trade him or is jones’ camp seeking a trade. or we just don’t know at this point?

According to Rodrigue, letting him know he can seek a trade is their response to Jones wanting an extension. That is, Jones is able to do that if he wants to, which is not the same as the Rams deciding that they will trade him and so as a team are actively seeking trade partners. BTW Jones deleted the post saying he didn’t ask to be traded.

Everything I said there is probably wrong.

Update:

From Rams coach Sean McVay addresses possible Ernest Jones trade

Jourdan Rodrigue

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5724721/2024/08/26/rams-ernest-jones-trade-alaric-jackson-suspension/

LOS ANGELES — Starting inside linebacker Ernest Jones was not present at Monday’s practice, a day after the Los Angeles Rams alerted him to the possibility that he could be traded.

McVay did not say whether he believed Jones would return to the team, only that the Rams are “working through some different things.”

McVay, addressing an ESPN report from Sunday morning that the Rams had given Jones “permission to seek a trade” (thus implying it had been requested), said specifically that Jones did not ask the Rams to move him.

“We never said that he requested a trade,” McVay added, “we’ve had communication with his representation.”

As The Athletic reported Sunday, the Rams let Jones know that he could be traded as they had conversations on the matter with other teams. Jones, a team captain and starter, was expected to play on the final year of his rookie contract after general manager Les Snead said in the spring that the Rams did not intend to extend him. McVay said Jones has handled the situation like a “pro.”

“These are parts of the profession,” he said, “they are not fun parts but they are real parts that you have to acknowledge. Ernest is a pro in every sense of the word. We’re just kind of dealing with it a day at a time.”

Potentially motivating the Rams’ openness to move Jones is the emergence of rookie Omar Speights, who Snead said will make their game day roster — in tandem with the reality that Jones will not receive an extension in Los Angeles.