Hill vs Siemian why is there a debate?

BoxerJoe said

And there are those who will see if the same people are defensive of Hill in the same manner that they were with Winston. This is why the hypocrisy has been called out. It's not just, "those critical of Jameis need to stay critical of Taysom in the same form." It's also, "those defensive of Jameis need to stay defensive of Taysom in the same form."

Click to expand...

No, I reject that premise. IMO, it was wrong to be critical of Winston without taking Oline and WR's into consideration. If I'm wrong that it follows that it was okay to do that. If I'm wrong that means it perfectly fine to be critical of Winston without taking Oline and Wr's into consideration. If that's the case then there's nothing wrong with doing the same with Hill.

Given the situation with the Oline and the WR's, I believe it was wrong to be critical of Winston or any other QB without taking that into consideration.

The people who were critical of Winston don't believe that. If Hill gets the start, I will still believe it's wrong to be critical of Hill without taking those two things into consideration. I will be looking to see if those folks STILL believe that it to be okay of Hill without taking that into consideration or if they magically have an epiphany and realize that it's not right to not take those into consideration. I suspect that Oline injuries and WR inexperience will become acceptable considerations when evaluating Hill.