The Jack Trengove is BACK Thread

[Redleg 38,036]

2 hours ago, Baghdad Bob said:

I share an email thread with an astute observer and he was at training on Monday.  This was his comment on Trengove:

Trengove moving extremely well, looks fit. Also looks incredibly slow. Still a long uphill climb for him. Hope he makes it he's a ripping bloke.

Could the "incredibly slow" bit, be as a result of club direction?

[Sir Why You Little 34,928]

On 28 January 2016 at 4:46 AM, rolly said:

Must've benn playing through a rediculous amount of pain if he has wrecked his foot this badly.

 

Too proud as a captain to miss games for injury.

 

Courage or foolishness?

Exactly...

[Sir Why You Little 34,928]

On 28 January 2016 at 3:45 AM, Dees2014 said:

I think you have to give our medical staff some credence here. If there were any doubt he could not stand up to a full game of football after his recovery I suggest he would have been delisted. The question is when will he be ready. 

The club has invested a lot in him over the last three years, and has IMHO shown admirable patience in his development which has not been the case in so many of our top 20 picks in the last 10 years to our considerable long term cost. There is no doubt this year is his last chance to again show his early form to pay back the faith, but if it works it would see us in the top eight this year.

Petracca, Jones, Vince, Tyson, VDB, Brayshaw, Viney......and an in-form Trengove, would be quite a mid field and would propell Jesse towards a 100 goal season and a long term future with the Dees. A nice thought! 

Hey 2014

time invested in Trenners over the past few years included trying to fob him off to Richmond, which failed. 

The reason he still wears the MFC Colours...

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

42 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Hey 2014

time invested in Trenners over the past few years included trying to fob him off to Richmond, which failed. 

The reason he still wears the MFC Colours...

WYL, you have to weigh up risk vs. reward. I'll do a highly simplified example.

Risk 1: Keeping Trengove on the list

Possible MFC outcomes: (1) Trengove comes back and stars. (2) Trengove never plays again. (3) Trengove does play again, but never gets better than his first couple of seasons. 

 

Risk 2: De-list Trengove and gain a late draft pick.

Possible MFC outcomes: (1) Late draft pick ends up being a regular member of the 22. (2) Late draft pick has an okay career where he's in and out of the side a fair bit (3) Late draft pick plays a couple of games before being delisted himself. 

 

You'd have to think that Risk 1 is the obvious risk to take, given that outcomes 1 and 3 are superior to any of the outcomes of Risk 2. Further, the benefits of Risk 2 aren't tantalizing enough to make it a worthwhile risk to take. 

[monoccular 16,396]

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

Clint, I'd suggest pace wasn't going to adversely effect his career - he'd shown enough already.  Plenty of players like Luke Hodge don't have pace.  Nonetheless, it's worth re-reading our very own Weber's (?) excellent post (some time ago) that gives insight to navicular injuries and the types of issues potentially facing Trengove, including perhaps even a psychological one:

 

"the midfoot is critical to the 'rigid lever' that the foot must become to allow power in push off, thus for running and jumping. It also must have the flexibility to allow deformation of the foot during weightbearing prior to push off. The navicular is the keystone of the arch which forms the rigid lever. If it's suspect, the whole transfer of power is inhibited. If JT's nav heals without issues of blood supply being affected, there's no reason he can't make a full recovery, and that would include complete power capabilities. If the midfoot was unstable either biomechanically or as a conscious lack of trust in it, he would certainly present with those symptoms, but there are a bunch of other pathologies that could give the same symptoms."

PD - thanks for reposting this.  It gives an insight (for those who choose to read it) into Jack's challenges and as to how / why it effected him so badly.

I join all  the vast majority who wish him well, but I shall not hold too high expectations.  Any return to anything like his initial form would be a huge bonus for him and the team.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

Clint, I'd suggest pace wasn't going to adversely effect his career - he'd shown enough already.  Plenty of players like Luke Hodge don't have pace.  Nonetheless, it's worth re-reading our very own Weber's (?) excellent post (some time ago) that gives insight to navicular injuries and the types of issues potentially facing Trengove, including perhaps even a psychological one:

 

I hope it is because of injury no doubt, but I actually think he's a slow player in a lot of ways, not just his running but in all his movement.  I realise that it sounds a bit loony but it has been evident to me for many years.

[Gator 16,921]

12 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

 

I hope it is because of injury no doubt, but I actually think he's a slow player in a lot of ways, not just his running but in all his movement.  I realise that it sounds a bit loony but it has been evident to me for many years.

Fair enough and I wasn't asserting you didn't think he could play notwithstanding his pace.

And yes, he has a "deliberate" style.

[Sir Why You Little 34,928]

1 hour ago, Good Times Grimes said:

WYL, you have to weigh up risk vs. reward. I'll do a highly simplified example.

Risk 1: Keeping Trengove on the list

Possible MFC outcomes: (1) Trengove comes back and stars. (2) Trengove never plays again. (3) Trengove does play again, but never gets better than his first couple of seasons. 

 

Risk 2: De-list Trengove and gain a late draft pick.

Possible MFC outcomes: (1) Late draft pick ends up being a regular member of the 22. (2) Late draft pick has an okay career where he's in and out of the side a fair bit (3) Late draft pick plays a couple of games before being delisted himself. 

 

You'd have to think that Risk 1 is the obvious risk to take, given that outcomes 1 and 3 are superior to any of the outcomes of Risk 2. Further, the benefits of Risk 2 aren't tantalizing enough to make it a worthwhile risk to take. 

I agree mate. I have never said i do not want him to succeed. I don't think he is going to make it because he played with the injury too long, but if i am wrong cool. 

But for people to say the club has invested years into Trenners best interests is just BS. 

1. To make him Captain was the most Pathetic decision made during that dark time. No justification will change my mind on that. 

2. To keep playing him injured.... (because he was Captain/he was the player the club had tanked for over 2 seasons)..when he had no accelleration and sub pace and could not kick any distance..kicked straight into the man on the mark more than once..was just shocking management from a club that was not at AFL standard. 

He is at the club still because his fitness test failed, so i am just refuting what 2014 and others have said in earlier posts

jack will only play in the middle of the ground if he does make it back. 

Not fast enough to be outside anymore...

Edited February 3, 2016 by Sir Why You Little

[Ted Lasso 17,124]

From my point of view anything Jack does is a bonus from this point, if he gets back and becomes even a good player it will be a huge bonus for the club!

[KingDingAling 3,622]

Physically, he looks a lot fitter. His arms are chiseled and he added pure muscle. Previously it looked as though he didn't do a lot of gym work. He'll make it back IMO. We didn't see the best of him. I still believe we will see the best of him.

[Bitter but optimistic 21,556]

Gee I hope he gets back and has a long career at the Dees.

[daisycutter 28,685]

19 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Gee I hope he gets back and has a long career at the Dees.

and hopefully playing some footy too, bbo

[btdemon 475]

The thing about Jack is, we know he can play footy. The only real risk is that he is taking a spot on the list. Given the other players we also carry in the hope they will succeed, I don't see this as much of a problem. We will find out this season whether his comeback is viable. Like most here, I am very keen to see him playing great footy again.

Edited February 3, 2016 by btdemon

[Its Time for Another 4,058]

21 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Sadly, I don't think his slowness was because of injury, it hasn't helped but even in 2010 he was on the slow side of things.

Would be very interesting to know his 20m sprint time at his combine and what it is once he is fully recovered. That will provide the answer.

[Gator 16,921]

4 hours ago, It's Time said:

Would be very interesting to know his 20m sprint time at his combine and what it is once he is fully recovered. That will provide the answer.

He ran 2.97 seconds for the 20 metre sprint at state screening. 

He was drafted as the best marking mid in his year with an excellent combination of speed and endurance.  He also represented his state in cross country running as a junior.

[Dees2014 2,377]

On 3 February 2016 at 2:29 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

Hey 2014

time invested in Trenners over the past few years included trying to fob him off to Richmond, which failed. 

The reason he still wears the MFC Colours...

I agree SWYL, they did, if I remember rightly for pick 12, but did not get away with it because of his medical condition. The reality of the harsh world of trading. With doubtful fitness, that would not have been a bad deal for us. 

However, leaving that aside, the club has still invested considerable resources in him and shown considerable patience. The point I was trying to make is this contrasts with the lack of patience and poor development practices with so many of our top 20 picks since 2008 who's have been pushed aside when they did not develop into our saviours almost immediately. 

I think we would all agree that the professionalism of our player development has gone to several levels higher since Roos arrived which will only lead to good outcomes. 

 

 

 

 

[Sir Why You Little 34,928]

8 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

I agree SWYL, they did, if I remember rightly for pick 12, but did not get away with it because of his medical condition. The reality of the harsh world of trading. With doubtful fitness, that would not have been a bad deal for us. 

However, leaving that aside, the club has still invested considerable resources in him and shown considerable patience. The point I was trying to make is this contrasts with the lack of patience and poor development practices with so many of our top 20 picks since 2008 who's have been pushed aside when they did not develop into our saviours almost immediately. 

I think we would all agree that the professionalism of our player development has gone to several levels higher since Roos arrived which will only lead to good outcomes. 

Fair Comment mate

but if the Fitness Test hadn't failed Trenners would be wearing a Richmond Jumper right now. 

We are investing time into him now only because we had to...

[Middymalt 244]

On 3 February 2016 at 2:13 PM, Redleg said:

Could the "incredibly slow" bit, be as a result of club direction?

Nah he's right mate he looked really slow he was moving freely but he had no pace I actually commented to my brother saying I could beat him in a 100 metre foot race and I'm in my early 40s but as I stated he was moving freely and that's a positive.

[Whispering_Jack 28,094]

7 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Fair Comment mate

but if the Fitness Test hadn't failed Trenners would be wearing a Richmond Jumper right now. 

We are investing time into him now only because we had to...

I don't think that's correct. Wasn't he given a one year contract extension last year?

We are investing time into him now because it's the right thing to do. If he comes good then he will be a major asset and people at the club would have assessed the chances of that happening to make it worthwhile keeping him on.

 

[Sir Why You Little 34,928]

9 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

I don't think that's correct. Wasn't he given a one year contract extension last year?

We are investing time into him now because it's the right thing to do. If he comes good then he will be a major asset and people at the club would have assessed the chances of that happening to make it worthwhile keeping him on.

 

Yes but only because the original deal fell through...

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

52 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes but only because the original deal fell through...

WYL, what are you even trying to argue at the moment? You seem to be going in circles without actually making a point that we don't already know.

Yes, we had a trade on the table that would've seen us get Pick 14 for Trengove. Yes, it fell through. Yes, we re-signed him after the trade fell through. Now he's on his way to recovery and still contracted to us despite once being on the trading block. Anything else?

[jnrmac 19,324]

We love Jack in our family. We hope like hell he gets back to playing good footy. He deserves it.

[Moonshadow 16,409]

Not sure if this has been detailed on thread, but has Jack had a bone graft done on his nav and if so, what would that do to his recovery, pace, spring, etc. Also has anyone seen him kick with his injured foot lately?

Edited February 4, 2016 by Moonshadow

[Sir Why You Little 34,928]

42 minutes ago, Good Times Grimes said:

WYL, what are you even trying to argue at the moment? You seem to be going in circles without actually making a point that we don't already know.

Yes, we had a trade on the table that would've seen us get Pick 14 for Trengove. Yes, it fell through. Yes, we re-signed him after the trade fell through. Now he's on his way to recovery and still contracted to us despite once being on the trading block. Anything else?

No you covered it pretty well

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

No you covered it pretty well

Cool. Can we get this thread back to being about Trengove's progress rather than about why he's still on the list, then?