Always the equivocator, DiSilva strikes again.
I always thought the touchdown-to-interception ratio was important. By that measure, 50:17, Stafford in '21 wasn't that bad. His 2.94 ratio is better than Rodgers (2:85) or Brady (2:41) for the same year.
Yet, here's DiSilva's take: "Stafford was a stud for the Rams in 2021, despite a high number of interceptions (17). He threw 41 touchdown passes in the regular season and another nine in the playoffs... " Lessee... that's 50 TD's, 17 picks - and notably, no picks in the playoffs. So what do you isolate and punch up?
It's the old filling in the cookie formula: stash the negative message between positive ones, or after the first positive and leave the second one off.
Why tear down instead of building up, or why not simply be objective, DiSilva? Trying to make a name for yourself?
Justified and substantiated criticism is one thing - word choice sliet-of-hand and innuendo, perpetually coloring and prejudicing your readers opinions to the perjorative
when that isn't your job is quite another.
Sorry - can't admire or respect your "school" of journalism. And the sad bit is I think you know better, and can do better. So show me.
