Hill vs Siemian why is there a debate?

I don't think many people had COMPLETE disregard to the injuries and the inexperienced WRs. People understood the whole absolute mess surrounding the Carolina game, for example. And contrary to what you said, there were definitely very vocal people when it came to trying to squash any and all negative talk about Winston. "OMG! Why are you still talking about that play? That was last week. Get over it already." You are going to be cool with people having that attitude toward Taysom's mistakes, too, right?

You said you plan on applying the same standards previously set by those who were critical of Winston's play. Well, here is where we find more hypocrisy if you don't understand someone else saying, "I plan on applying the same standards previously set by those who were so defensive of Winston's play." You said that you don't put people into groups, but you are picking a side's criteria on which to go forward in judging the QB. Why choose the hypercritical side toward Winston in judging Taysom and not the hyper-defensive side? The hypocrisy still abounds.
I'll make this as simple as I can. I won't say a word critical of Hill. I will wait for the same people who were critical of Winston to be just as critical of Hill as they were of Winston and I'll also pay attention to the people who are defending Hill using Oline injuries and WR inexperience as an excuse because they will.

I don't understand how you see it as hypocritical when someone applies the same standard to one QB as has been applied to another. Nothing you've said explains that. How is treating one the same as the other hypocritical? Are we supposed to just ignore those and find a new metric for criticism? What is it that you suggest?