Hill vs Siemian why is there a debate? (5 Viewers)

[BBarnes]

It’s amazing how many people know nothing about Hill as a QB, they just like the player and that he’s a team player and very likable guy.

The truth is, Hill wasn’t a good “passing” QB in college and while he’s better now, he still isn’t good. He’s yet to learn how to successfully and continually go through progressions (we saw what happened when given that chance against Philly), he doesn’t throw receivers open (they have to be wide open which won’t happen often with this receiving Corp), etc.

I honestly admire Payton’s loyalty, it’s admirable and it’s one of the many reasons almost every player loves playing for him. Just make sure that loyalty and even a little bit of arrogance doesn’t kill the team.

If he goes with Hill, he’s plenty good enough to beat the bad teams with our defense, but with no MT to bail him out I don’t see him being close to a QB that will win a playoff game or have us deep in the playoffs.

See, one clown already showed up to clown the post

Facts are never a high priority here

 

[Clintonrebel]

I'm not going to substitute my opinion over the opinion of one of the best QB coaches of all time, not to mention he has spent 1,000x more time with and watching these guys than I have.

 

[Doug B]

It should work perfectly. It should be a pick your poison situation. But much like Jalen Hurts in Philly, Taysom keeps way too much and just leaves Alvin with scraps when he knows a play isn't going to work. I feel like Alvin has had some of his lowest touch totals with TH at QB.

Hill also struggles to find Kamara in the flat -- or even to check down to Kamara. Usually inexperienced QBs lean hard on the short passing game and feed good-hands backs like Kamara. Taysom Hill is kind of the opposite.

 

[Saintamaniac]

That's just the type of hypocrisy I am talking about. Jameis supporters want to hold Taysom supporters to task over being as critical with Taysom as they were with Jameis, but Jameis supporters don't want to be held to task of explaining away things for Taysom like they did for Jameis.

No, I respectfully disagree. First and foremost, I'm not going to separate people into groups of Jameis and Hill supporters. I support what I feel is best for the team.

I think you mischaracterize people who defended Winston's play. Those folks, including myself, felt it wasn't fair to Winston to judge his play with complete disregard to the injuries to the Oline and the inexperience of the WR group and that was it. Very few people were overlooking unwise decisions that Winston made where he got lucky and didn't hurt the team.

The people who were being overly critical of Winston refused to take that into consideration and actually used that as a basis for being critical of Winston. It would be the height of hypocrisy to now take those into consideration to excuse any mistakes made by Hill.

I explained my reasonings previously. No, I intend to apply the same standards previously set by those who were critical of Winston's play. It's not necessary to take into consideration Oline injuries or WR talent to evaluate Hill. If he can't maintain the offensive production and keep the TO's to a minimum then by the standard that has been set, it's his fault and his shortcomings as a QB that will be responsible.

You don't get to claim hypocrisy for using previously established metrics. if it was acceptable to criticize Winston and disregard those things, it will be acceptable to criticize Hill and disregard those things. It's as simple as that. And if the people who were critical of Winston suddenly go quiet, THEN you will have the hypocrisy you mentioned.

Your saying, "I'm going to act like Taysom supporters by not allowing excuses" is no different that a Taysom supporter saying, "I'm going to act like Jameis supporters and excuse away every bad thing of Taysom under the sun."

I'm saying I'm going to apply the same standard that has been established for being critical of the QB position this year. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Big Up Bush]

In camp it was Hill vs Winston. Hill looking like he would be the starter one week. Then Jameis looking like he would be the starter next. It was neck and neck. What seemed like SP didn’t even know who he would start until the final preseason game.

I’m curious why there is a debate on who we are now starting. If Hill is healthy and ready to go why Siemian? Did he do that much in the bucs game to name him a starter? imo no, the bucs bailed him out on many drives.

We beat the falcons with hill last season. Excited to do it again with any QB!

Pretty easy. Payton has made it clear that last week's offensive gameplan was an easy transition from Winston to Siemian, and that it would be a much different planning for Hill. Doubtful that Siemian could as easily take over from an injured Hill. If Hill hasn't been healthy in weeks, and hasn't played, why would we risk potentially losing the game and the player by rushing him into leading a whole gameplan? Hill does much more for this team in his utility role, because it adds a dangerous dimension for our opponents, and honestly, gives Hill more opportunity for explosive plays. If Siemian understands and can execute Payton's system, and it allows us to use Taysom to his best ability and Kamara and Ingram, I think we should go that route--at least for this week. (All that said, can you imagine running an option backfield with Hill, Kamara, and Ingram?)

 

[diehard]

For me, its the entertainment of the unknown. I was intrigued with Hill's potential and eager to see him operate as a QB in Sean's offense which I got to see in the games last year and this preseason. I'm not quick or qualified to declare cap on a player's development and won't pretend to do so with Hill. That aside, I wouldn't mind seeing Siemian against the Falcons with a full week of reps and a tailored gameplan.

On a side note, I heard Peter King report that the Saints had fielded calls from several teams over the previous few weeks wanting to trade for Trevor. How advantageous was it that the club decided to hold on to him.

 

[BoNcHiE]

We are short-handed enough as it is on O. We need Hill at TE and his goal-line plays. Simien is a better passer of the football. Is he a better QB overall? Don't really care to argue it, but as a team issue, we are better with Simien dinking and dunking while Hill plays his very important role, at least until Hill shows he's clearly better and we can sign some help at WR.

 

[BoNcHiE]

It was neck and neck for quite some time. Jameis didn't start to slowly pull away until about the time pre-season started and then when he threw those 2 TDs to Callaway against Jacksonville is when there was no doubt he had earned the starting job. I'm not saying this will be indicative of how Taysom does as starter now, but he was right there with Jameis in training camp for a good while.

A lot happened after August 4th. By the 2nd preseason game, it wasn't even a question anymore. They barely practice in pads during training camp.

 

[BoxerJoe]

No, I respectfully disagree. First and foremost, I'm not going to separate people into groups of Jameis and Hill supporters. I support what I feel is best for the team.

I think you mischaracterize people who defended Winston's play. Those folks, including myself, felt it wasn't fair to Winston to judge his play with complete disregard to the injuries to the Oline and the inexperience of the WR group and that was it. Very few people were overlooking unwise decisions that Winston made where he got lucky and didn't hurt the team.

The people who were being overly critical of Winston refused to take that into consideration and actually used that as a basis for being critical of Winston. It would be the height of hypocrisy to now take those into consideration to excuse any mistakes made by Hill.

I explained my reasonings previously. No, I intend to apply the same standards previously set by those who were critical of Winston's play. It's not necessary to take into consideration Oline injuries or WR talent to evaluate Hill. If he can't maintain the offensive production and keep the TO's to a minimum then by the standard that has been set, it's his fault and his shortcomings as a QB that will be responsible.

You don't get to claim hypocrisy for using previously established metrics. if it was acceptable to criticize Winston and disregard those things, it will be acceptable to criticize Hill and disregard those things. It's as simple as that. And if the people who were critical of Winston suddenly go quiet, THEN you will have the hypocrisy you mentioned.


I'm saying I'm going to apply the same standard that has been established for being critical of the QB position this year. Nothing more, nothing less.

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.

A lot happened after August 4th. By the 2nd preseason game, it wasn't even a question anymore. They barely practice in pads during training camp.

That was just one tweet I pulled. There were articles the day before the first pre-season game still talking about how tight the competition was. And I don't know why you brought up the second pre-season game like that after I more than once said that was when Jameis had the starting job rightfully locked up (after the two TDs to Callaway).

 

[Saintamaniac]

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?

 

[BoxerJoe]

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?

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.

 

[meily]

And lemme guess, Ian Book has those intangibles.

WTH ever, these guys would run into a burning building for JW...I doubt they'd even warn Ian Book that he's about to step in dog poop right now.

You really take people liking Ian Book personal, you should probably look into why your triggered so much by that, but no this is about a QB's Intangibles not Ian Book (hopefully that quells some of your anxiety towards him being brought up) Siemian showed some of those Intangibles (can we bring him up or are you going to break out in hives).


....and I'm pretty sure these guys would rally behind whoever is under center.

 

[BayouSAINTJoe]

You really take people liking Ian Book personal, you should probably look into why your triggered so much by that, but no this is about a QB's Intangibles not Ian Book (hopefully that quells some of your anxiety towards him being brought up) Siemian showed some of those Intangibles (can we bring him up or are you going to break out in hives).


....and I'm pretty sure these guys would rally behind whoever is under center.

Really wasn't about Ian Book huh? I wonder why anyone would make that assumption:
(rolling w/ a 4th rd rookie as your profile pic is pretty common in the sport fan world)


Re: Siemian/Hill, I'm good either way, I liked the way Siemian handled himself last week, and I want the Hill possibility to either become more likely if he does good or get put to bed for good if he doesn't.

Crazy thing is...I'm looking at the bright side of JW's injury, it either lets us retain him at a lower cap cost or it shows that we can roll with Hill long term or if we should just end the experiment...This season was always a "lets see what we got" season with me.

 

[Saintamaniac]

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.

Let me be clear that I am not in search of any moral high ground. I think the people who were overly critical of Winston were wrong. I think most of it comes from feeling that Hill should be the starter. Now that Hill may be the starter, I will see if those same people are critical of Hill in the same manner that they were with Winston.

14 TD's, 3 interceptions and 1 fumble with a 4-2 record in 6 games. That's the baseline. Similar or better results indicate I was wrong. Anything below the baseline indicates I wasn't.

The difference is I will be critical of Hill based on his performance, not by his history.

 

[bchevron]

The dilusion that people have thinking Taysom Hill will ever be a quality starting QB in the NFL. He is basically the equivalent of a Ohio State QB making the jump to the NFL. They ball out in college but as soon as get into the NFL where defenses shut down their first read they panic. He is great in his current role as Weapon X. Why not role out with Siemian starting and Book backing up. If something happens to Siemian you finish the game with book and next week you turn TH into you starter.
Siemian is a professional backup QB, TH is essentially a rookie at this point. Just saying