Hill vs Siemian why is there a debate?

Saintamaniac said

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?

Click to expand...

I am just trying to get you see that there are two sides from which to look at it. You thought there were people who were too critical of Winston and are going to use that as a gauge in your judgement and postings regarding Hill, right? (BTW, I don't want it to seem as though I am trying to impose any posting criteria on you. Post as you wish and with just as much right to do so as anyone else.) I am just trying to get you to acknowledge that just as you can use the hypercritical postings about Jameis as a guide for speaking out about Taysom, so, too, can someone use the hyper-defensive postings about Jameis as a guide for speaking out about Taysom; and that neither side would have the moral high ground there.

I've been all about maintaining consistency here, which is why I have called out the hypocrisy. Don't say one side has to stay consistent in their criticism while not holding the side of defense to the standard which they have set. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

It's all good though. We all just want to invest our 3+ hours watching the Saints this Sunday while hoping for the win no matter who lines up under center.