Since the COVID-19 pandemic, forecasting hubs and non-traditional respiratory disease surveillance streams have become increasingly common. However, many forecasting approaches assume that relationships between surveillance predictors and disease outcomes remain stable over time and that incorporating additional historical data will improve forecast performance. To evaluate these assumptions in a real-world setting, we developed and evaluated forecasts of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza hospitalizations in Utah using syndromic surveillance, test positivity, and wastewater data. Rather than identifying a single, best-performing model, we examined whether relationships between surveillance predictors and hospitalization outcomes remained stable across seasons and whether longer historical training periods consistently improved forecast accuracy. Relationships between surveillance predictors and hospitalizations varied substantially by pathogen and season. Analyses using pooled data across multiple years suggested strong positive correlations between predictors and outcomes, but these aggregated patterns often obscured weak or negative correlations observed during SARS-CoV-2 variant waves and influenza seasons. Forecast performance similarly varied over time. Models that performed well during some seasons, transmission phases, or under certain training strategies frequently performed worse than benchmark models in others. Training on additional historical data generally reduced forecast accuracy, though this varied by disease and transmission phase. Forecasting groups should prioritize continual evaluation of surveillance predictors, adaptive strategies, and diverse ensembles, rather than relying on a single model, data stream, or historical training framework each year.