Hill vs Siemian why is there a debate? (6 Viewers)

[BoxerJoe]

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.

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."

 

[Thunderchild]

It's also, "those defensive of Jameis need to stay defensive of Taysom in the same form.

Not necessarily. I have been defensive of Winston because I believed that CSP could rid an otherwise physically talented QB of his turnover tendencies. He has done so (so far) by spoonfeeding him the offense - something he also did with Drew, Bridgewater, and Taysom.

I'm not quite ready to defend Taysom as QB because he has not been named the starter and I'm not sure how his serious concussion will impact CSP's decision to start him at QB.

That said I always have, and always will, support whichever QB CSP places under center. If/when he chooses Taysom as to be the starter I'll support him.

But in no case have I, nor will I denigrate any of the 3. They're Saints and as long as they wear the b&g I'll support 'em.

 

[Saintamaniac]

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."

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.

 

[Sailorsaint]

The Gameday Thread is going to EXPLODE this weekend!

 

[StudioSaint]

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?

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.

 

[StudioSaint]

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.

This seems to be the crux of all of your posts on this subject. You are flat out saying that you are going to be watching posters and keeping track of who says what regarding Hill and compare it to what they said about Winston.

What's the point of taking names of who said what? What do you plan on doing with those names and what they said? How can this in any way be beneficial to any discussion?

 

[Saintamaniac]

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.

I'm not saying that at all. The people who were being overly critical of Winston without taking into consideration the Oline injuries and the WR's were wrong and simply looking for a reason to be critical of Winston. It would be wrong for me or anyone else to do the same to Hill. The same people who did it to Winston won't do it to Hill. That's what I'm saying.

 

[BoxerJoe]

Not necessarily. I have been defensive of Winston because I believed that CSP could rid an otherwise physically talented QB of his turnover tendencies. He has done so (so far) by spoonfeeding him the offense - something he also did with Drew, Bridgewater, and Taysom.

I'm not quite ready to defend Taysom as QB because he has not been named the starter and I'm not sure how his serious concussion will impact CSP's decision to start him at QB.

That said I always have, and always will, support whichever QB CSP places under center. If/when he chooses Taysom as to be the starter I'll support him.

But in no case have I, nor will I denigrate any of the 3. They're Saints and as long as they wear the b&g I'll support 'em.

I was talking more along the lines situationally with Saintamaniac. Some are claiming that those who disregarded O-line and WR play as defenses of Winston better not offer them up as defenses of Taysom. Okay, cool. But those who were open to such things as defenses for Jameis better be just as open to them as defenses for Taysom when equally appropriate.

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.

Fair enough. But see my reply to Thunderchild above. All I'm saying is that if you don't want to see the Jameis critics flip in beliefs (what should or shouldn't be a fair criticism) due to Taysom being the QB now, you should also not want to see the defenders of Jameis flip in beliefs due to Taysom being QB now either.

 

[dtc]

Hill isn't going back to Joker, we're down the starter and are left with only 2 REAL options at QB for the next 9 games, they're not going to hang TH out there to get dinged up again. Its either QB1 or QB2 for him going forward.

You want to bet?

Clearly I have no concrete proof, but my bet is he returns to joker and Seimian starts from here on out unless he stinks. And I say that because I think we are a better team with TH as the joker and another QB taking snaps not only because I think Taysom is not a good QB, but because to win our team needs options on offense and he is a great and unique option that might help us continue to win despite having our QB out and a clown circus as WRs.

 

[dtc]

People love Winston because of his big arm but fail to realize that a QB with half his talent can flourish in this offense because of something called intangibles.

Who? What are you even talking about?

 

[madake63]

Clearly I have no concrete proof, but my bet is he returns to joker and Seimian starts from here on out unless he stinks. And I say that because I think we are a better team with TH as the joker and another QB taking snaps not only because I think Taysom is not a good QB, but because to win our team needs options on offense and he is a great and unique option that might help us continue to win despite having our QB out and a clown circus as WRs.

Why is no one accounting for the fact that the Saints might not want to play him as the joker the rest of the year because then they'd probably lose Taysom in 22 as he chases his dream? I think they'd lean toward giving Taysom another shot at QB1 to ensure keeping him a Saint.

 

[Taker597]

Why is no one accounting for the fact that the Saints might not want to play him as the joker the rest of the year because then they'd probably lose Taysom in 22 as he chases his dream? I think they'd lean toward giving Taysom another shot at QB1 to ensure keeping him a Saint.

Hill looking more and more likely a cap casualty. Same with Winston, but I do think we'll probably bring Winston back only because we can afford to bring him back with his market going to be nothing.

 

[dtc]

Why is no one accounting for the fact that the Saints might not want to play him as the joker the rest of the year because then they'd probably lose Taysom in 22 as he chases his dream? I think they'd lean toward giving Taysom another shot at QB1 to ensure keeping him a Saint.

I don't think anyone cares about losing TH in 22 if he "chases his dream" because no other NFL team is going to pay him close to what we are if he can't beat out the guy who had no other options.

He lost in camp to JW and it wasn't close. He is a running QB on the wrong side of 30 with no pocket passing ability to fall back on. His dream is to play football and his talent lies in being probably the greatest all purpose football player to ever play the game and he needs to play that role and help us win.

If he takes a flyer on some loser team next year it won't matter to me at all. His contract is all smoke and mirrors and his actual QB skills are not great.

 

[BayouSAINTJoe]

You want to bet?

Clearly I have no concrete proof, but my bet is he returns to joker and Seimian starts from here on out unless he stinks. And I say that because I think we are a better team with TH as the joker and another QB taking snaps not only because I think Taysom is not a good QB, but because to win our team needs options on offense and he is a great and unique option that might help us continue to win despite having our QB out and a clown circus as WRs.

I say that because I truly believe that CSP is going to stick to his promise/plan to start TH as QB in the following game after the QB1 goes down. Only caveat this time is that TH is coming off an injury and might not be ready. But if he's ready, I believe that he is QB1 against ATL.

Do I think he's better at playing QB than Siemian? No, but him starting in Game 2 was always the plan going back to last year.

 

[louder]

The debate should be about QB ability and effectiveness in this offense going forward. Up until he got hurt, Jameis was the QB with the most of both. Now, with Trevor and Taysom as the only choices - which has more ability and effectiveness?
Before I start this, I am NOT a Taysom hater. Nor do I think Trevor is a great QB.
That being said, who of the 2 QBs has the most positive traits that result in effectiveness on the field.
Taysom, in the way Payton is using him, isn’t as effective as Trevor. Taysom is indecisive, holds onto the ball too long, can’t read defenses, is turnover prone, and has no deep ball. Trevor, by comparison, is decisive, has pocket awareness, can read defenses, actually has touch on his passes, and actually can throw a deep pass.
Trevor has much more experience at the QB position, and it shows.
This isn’t a debate. Trevor wins as a better option going forward for this season.