Hill vs Siemian why is there a debate?

A lot of good posts in this thread. I was amazed at Siemian's poise In coming off the bench after probably single digit reps in practice. Other than the dreadful int that was called back, he threw well.

I do not think that square peg Taysom Hill fits the round hole of starting quarterback, to steal someone else's metaphor. Rather, his best value is as a versatile offensive weapon. With Michael Thomas's likely absence this year--that's my opinion only-- we need every offensive weapon at our disposal. That means having Hill as a utility player.

Look at Tampa Bay, for instance. They have three running backs who could start for many teams. We have Kamara and now Ingram. They have three tight ends who could start for many teams. We have a regressing Trautman, converted WR Johnson, Vannett, and Griffin. They have at least three wide receivers who could start for many teams. We have Callaway, Smith, and a cast of extras. Is there any doubt that we need to put our offensive players in the best possible place to succeed? The way to put our offense in its best possible position is to leave Hill right where he is and roll the dice with former starting QB Siemian in my view.