Has anyone else noticed the enormity of his calves??

I like a lot of what he's done but I wish he was a bit more selfish around goal. He seems to try and pass the ball when well in range for AFL standard players. Once he takes the responsibility on himself and kicks running goals from 40-50m out, he will be very handy. He plays a similar role to Kent, who loves a goal and takes it on. Harmes will need to improve in this area if they are fighting for the same spot.

I don't think he does because they're totally different players. At Casey, Harmes played a fair bit on the ball, and I see him developing into an onballer who can rotate up forward. Kent on the other hand is a pure outside player, who's predominantly used up forward. I can't see Kent as an inside mid.

Why not mature age "Rookie" Trengove Not that I would keep him, but might placate a few on this site.

Would free up another spot??

With what is predicted as the weakest draft in a decade coming up, what a great idea!

That way we can use pick 95 on an unproven kid while we potentially have an injury free Trengove running around at Casey rotating between half forward & midfield getting 25 touches and a couple of goals a game, but if we have no long term injuries isn't able to play seniors until mid year. Meanwhile Pick 95 is struggling to have an impact with Casey's 2's team.

Why not mature age "Rookie" Trengove Not that I would keep him, but might placate a few on this site.

Would free up another spot??

He has already been given a new contract for 2016.

I would upgrade Harmes and rookie Hunt i.e. swap their roles. Hunt has been set back by injury. I suspect Harmes will be the reason the club move Jack watts on as he may well fill the role that was earmarked for Jack even though he is 10 cm shorter.

Has anyone else noticed the enormity of his calves??

I think i said this after his first game... solid!

And don't we love his unadulterated smile! The face of a boy who has been a Demon supporter all his life. He is living his dream and good on him.

Sadly, I am certain that there will be certain posters (few surprises who) who will come down on him, label him a spud or a dud, when he inevitably has a few poor games especially early in his career.

Most however will be excited and salivating at the prospects.

I would upgrade Harmes and rookie Hunt i.e. swap their roles. Hunt has been set back by injury. I suspect Harmes will be the reason the club move Jack watts on as he may well fill the role that was earmarked for Jack even though he is 10 cm shorter.

I understand Hunt is contracted for 2016. He cannot be rookied, even if there were a sensible argument for doing it. The upgrade for Harmes seems a certainty, though.

With what is predicted as the weakest draft in a decade coming up, what a great idea!

That way we can use pick 95 on an unproven kid while we potentially have an injury free Trengove running around at Casey rotating between half forward & midfield getting 25 touches and a couple of goals a game, but if we have no long term injuries isn't able to play seniors until mid year. Meanwhile Pick 95 is struggling to have an impact with Casey's 2's team.

Yeah well no wonder we are a laughing stock! Giving a bloke who we were happy to offload to Richmond another contract FMD!

And a player who will be coming of a serious injury, one year older, let me ask you this, Do you reckon he will have kept what little pace he had??

Ah just what we need another player who is perpetually stuck in second gear! I repeat FMD! Give me pick 95! Incredible!

Yeah well no wonder we are a laughing stock! Giving a bloke who we were happy to offload to Richmond another contract FMD!

And a player who will be coming of a serious injury, one year older, let me ask you this, Do you reckon he will have kept what little pace he had??

Ah just what we need another player who is perpetually stuck in second gear! I repeat FMD! Give me pick 95! Incredible!

I think we are all hoping fingers crossed that Trengove recovers perfectly and is running without hindrance so he recovers his early form and speed. Which was pretty good.

Yeah well no wonder we are a laughing stock! Giving a bloke who we were happy to offload to Richmond another contract FMD!

And a player who will be coming of a serious injury, one year older, let me ask you this, Do you reckon he will have kept what little pace he had??

Ah just what we need another player who is perpetually stuck in second gear! I repeat FMD! Give me pick 95! Incredible!

Menzel....

Watching Elliot Yeo go about it tonight makes me think Harmes could develop into that high marking half forward who hits the packs hard.

Here's hoping.

I think we are all hoping fingers crossed that Trengove recovers perfectly and is running without hindrance so he recovers his early form and speed. Which was pretty good.

Sadly I suspect tat there are some who will be hoping he fails, just to support their preconceptions.

Sadly I suspect tat there are some who will be hoping he fails, just to support their preconceptions.

More Sadly, if he fails then the inevitable question will be asked , Why did we waste our money on another contract?

Edited September 13, 201510 yr by picket fence

Yeah well no wonder we are a laughing stock! Giving a bloke who we were happy to offload to Richmond another contract FMD!

More Sadly, if he fails then the inevitable question will be asked , Why did we waste our money on another contract?

Whatever reasons we are or have been "a laughing stock of a club" , we most certainly are not so because we gave a new 12 month contract to Trengove! I reckon all clubs would have done so.

As for the second statement, we gave Trengove a new 12 month contract, because he deserved the opportunity to come back after his injury, (which he suffered in the service of our club). We gave him a new contract because we are not an rsole of a club discarding players of character like so much garbage. We gave him a new contract because his potential is high and if he fails it will have been worth the risk.

I fully support the club in this decision.

If he fails, it won't be for lack of commitment, application and effort. If he fails it will be because no-one can predict the future

Whatever reasons we are or have been "a laughing stock of a club" , we most certainly are not so because we gave a new 12 month contract to Trengove! I reckon all clubs would have done so.

As for the second statement, we gave Trengove a new 12 month contract, because he deserved the opportunity to come back after his injury, (which he suffered in the service of our club). We gave him a new contract because we are not an rsole of a club discarding players of character like so much garbage. We gave him a new contract because his potential is high and if he fails it will have been worth the risk.

I fully support the club in this decision.

If he fails, it won't be for lack of commitment, application and effort. If he fails it will be because no-one can predict the future

Fact still remains we were quite happy to offload him to Richmond! Quite happy!

Explain something to me,

Why did he go through a fitness test at Richmond when clearly clearly he wasn't ready??

Did the club give him the Ok? Was he given a medical all clear to proceed?

Did the Richmond fitness test contribute to further injury?

Whilst you ponder those questions ask yourself this

He was losing pace before injury was he not?

Something just doesn't quite add up with this!

If he comes back well and good, but my lingering doubts remain. I have no query over his commitment, application or effort none at all.

Just making a pragmatic footy decision and given our current status that's all that should be the issue!

Fact still remains we were quite happy to offload him to Richmond! Quite happy!

Explain something to me,

Why did he go through a fitness test at Richmond when clearly clearly he wasn't ready??

Did the club give him the Ok? Was he given a medical all clear to proceed?

Did the Richmond fitness test contribute to further injury?

Whilst you ponder those questions ask yourself this

He was losing pace before injury was he not?

Something just doesn't quite add up with this!

If he comes back well and good, but my lingering doubts remain. I have no query over his commitment, application or effort none at all.

Just making a pragmatic footy decision and given our current status that's all that should be the issue!

Why were "we were quite happy to offload him to Richmond!"? The speculation here on Demonland was that the club was packaging an attempt to land a 'big fish'.

"Why did he go through a fitness test at Richmond when clearly clearly he wasn't ready??" The statements from both the club and Trengove at the time were that the test results came as a surprise.

"Did the Richmond fitness test contribute to further injury?" The statement from last year was that it was a scan that revealed a problem with the healing, not a physical trial.

"He was losing pace before injury was he not?". Trengove himself said recently, that when the problem was originally diagnosed in early 2014, it came as a bit of a relief because it explained why he hadn't been able to do things which he previously had been able to.

I, and many other posters here thought that an undisclosed injury, (majority thinking at the time was Osteitis Pubis), may have been the reason he slowed down in 2013. As it turns out it was (probably), this issue.

I'll leave you with a question. Why would a 21 Yr old lose his pace, if not for injury? Can you explain that?

Was he ever Quick to start with??

is Harmes contracted for 2016?

Not as yet. I expect him to be upgraded and signed till the end of 2017.

More Sadly, if he fails then the inevitable question will be asked , Why did we waste our money on another contract?

Maybe because his leadership, commitment, loyalty and attitude have been nothing short of inspirational during the time of his injury and whether he makes it back or not being more like Jack Trengove is something every person should aspire to be.

I know you won't understand that, Jacks signed a one year deal, for peanuts to try and resurrect his AFL career, knowing one more setback and he's done, he is absolutely 0 risk, huge upside if he does get him right because at his best he is absolutely best 22 with strong scope to grow into a very good player and he offers us more even when he isn't playing than half the blokes on our list.

If anyones heart beats true, it's Trenners.

Maybe because his leadership, commitment, loyalty and attitude have been nothing short of inspirational during the time of his injury and whether he makes it back or not being more like Jack Trengove is something every person should aspire to be.

I know you won't understand that, Jacks signed a one year deal, for peanuts to try and resurrect his AFL career, knowing one more setback and he's done, he is absolutely 0 risk, huge upside if he does get him right because at his best he is absolutely best 22 with strong scope to grow into a very good player and he offers us more even when he isn't playing than half the blokes on our list.

If anyones heart beats true, it's Trenners.

Well said. And one extra point can be added. The choice is, in effect, between Jack Trengove and Melbourne's final pick in the draft. A risk analysis would show that the chance of Trengove making a contribution as a player in the future must be considered to be greater than that of a very late draft pick. Seems like a logical decision to me.

Was he ever Quick to start with??

Never lightning but much better in his first years...the bigger issue was he lost power to influence a contest.

If you don't think he had power, have a look at how he nailed Danger...

https://youtu.be/sv7ZH-NKuIs

Wouldn't mind seeing the thread get back to Harmesy if anyone has any more news / opinions to offer, and maybe a separate thread on Jack T??

I understand Hunt is contracted for 2016. He cannot be rookied, even if there were a sensible argument for doing it. The upgrade for Harmes seems a certainty, though.

You can delist a contracted player you just need to pay them out and there contract is included within the TPP.

If you then rookie that player i believe you just need to pay them as per their original contact and not standard rookie wagies