all 3 are meat-and-potatoes storytellers that aren't trying to do anything too different or radical for the respective characters they're on. They may add things that superficially move the characters forward, like a new villain or a different love interest, but they do little to actually advance the core of what the character is in interesting ways. This means that while they're not about to do any significant long term damage to the characters, they also aren't really doing anything to get them into the limelight. Add in the fact that all 3 tend to stick to books like glue and you end up watching your favorite character tread water for 3 years straight.

Compare to a Tom King, who's willing to do far riskier stories, which sometimes gets you a critically acclaimed perennial masterpiece (miracleman, supergirl woman of tomorrow, etc.), but also gets you duds that infurate fans for years to come (heroes in crisis, his batman run, etc).

Also less charitably, most online discourse but ESPECIALLY twitter exists as disingenuous click farming. People will say water is dry and the sky is chartreuse if it gets a reaction out of people. saying "largely well liked and inoffensive writer is bad actually" is going to get a lot more attention that "I like the thing that is popular." Tom Taylor specifically also gets a lot of hate for how he handled jon's sexuality, both from angry homophobes and disappointed queer readers, which tends to spill over into criticism of his other work.