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...

Hypocrisy is an individual action, not a group thing. If someone changes their standards on evaluating the QB position just because there's a change in QB, then that is the epitome of employing double standards which is hypocritical.

If someone argued that you can't ignore OL and WR play when evaluating Winston's play and then that same someone turns around and argues that you have to ignore OL and WR play when evaluating Hill, then that someone is being hypocritical.

It works the opposite way as well. You're basically saying, if others are going to be hypocritical in their evaluations of Winston and Hill first, them I'm going to be hypocritical in my evaluations of Winston and Hill in response.

Doesn't matter who's hypocritical first, anyone using different standards in their evaluations of Winston and Hill is being hypocritical. It's not different when you do it. It's the exact same thing just on the opposite side of the same coin.

Hope you can see it objectively now.