Just when we start to praise Kurt for a good start to the season...

***adarian_too*** · -11-13-2004

Originally Posted by NickSeiler

It wasn't a radical move, but it was a loyal one.

If it was loyal to start him one week, was it disloyal to bench him the next? How long must loyalty last in order to remain still loyalty?

**Nick** · -11-13-2004

Originally Posted by adarian_too

If it was loyal to start him one week, was it disloyal to bench him the next? How long must loyalty last in order to remain still loyalty?

I'm not referring to a weekly basis during the season. I'm referring to the offseason, where he was handed the job despite legitimate competition.

**HUbison** · -11-15-2004

Originally Posted by NickSeiler

I'm not referring to a weekly basis during the season. I'm referring to the offseason, where he was handed the job despite legitimate competition.

Despite legitimate competition? Or because of legitimate competition? Just curious.

**Nick** · -11-15-2004

Despite. It wouldn't make sense to say he was handed the starting job because of legitimate competition, IMO.

**HUbison** · -11-15-2004

Originally Posted by NickSeiler

Despite. It wouldn't make sense to say he was handed the starting job because of legitimate competition, IMO.

I agree, if Bulger was noticably better than Warner in the preseason, then it wouldn't make sense to say that Warner was "handed the starting job because of legitimate competition". But I don't recall Warner having a preseason that was notably inferior to Bulger's. In fact, I remember Warner playing pretty well. That's why I'm curious why you say...

Originally Posted by Nick

I'm referring to the offseason, where he was handed the job despite legitimate competition.

**Nick** · -11-15-2004

The comment was meant to say that despite there being another player who was legitimate competition to Kurt's position, he was handed the starting job. There was no competition between them despite Bulger looking sharp and capable during 2002.