Sorry, but self-serving and self-aggrandizing articles like his are not likely to convince many people. Yes, he is undeniably a superior player, what he has done to transition from college WR to NFL All-Pro CB is incredible (I choose that word pretty specifically). I'd like to admire him for his great accomplishments, hell, I do admire him for it, but his behavior makes it really difficult for me, and I suspect, many people who simply want him to act like an adult and a professional. Yes, what I want from him is my issue, not his, but the subject at hand, raised by your comment and by his article, is to explain and defend his behavior, and there the responsibility to convince me and the rest of the readers to understand and accept it lies entirely with him. To me, he failed utterly with his article.
Having the ability to construct a brief article is hardly impressive from some who, as we are
constantly reminded, graduated from Stanford, especially in light of its mangled grammar. It is even less impressive when that individual's degree was in communications. It is not unfair to expect a Stanford communications degree-holder to make a cogent and convincing case. I think he failed miserably. Does he understand that, from the perspective of many of the people he is trying to convince in his article, he humiliated Erin Andrews, Fox Sports, the Seahawks, and himself? He offers nothing remotely apologetic and he doubles down on the egoism and denigration of his opponents. What a surprise that many people would rather see a modicum of sportsmanship in that moment, or at least in the explanation he attempts to offer the next day.
To spare others the hit on The MMQB site, the rationale he offers for his behavior is that: (1) he didn't have enough opportunities to make plays in the game (his team just won arguably the most important game in their franchise's history, but apparently his insufficient number of opportunities was foremost in his mind at that moment); (2) he was victimized by what he (and quite possibly no other sentient being) views as a bad call on the other play he was called upon to make in the game; (3) he allegedly was rebuffed in his attempt to congratulate Crabtree immediately following the great play he made to essentially end the game (we of course have only his word about this, with all the credibility or lack thereof that entails for him, and must not consider the contrast between what he alleges he went to Crabtree to do and what we saw him do immediately thereafter); (4) Crabtree isn't a great player like he is; (5) Crabtree wasn't nice to him last summer; and, (6) he is kind and generous to his family and community. This is supposed to be a compelling argument to people?
One thing I will say about the article, it definitely gives a new meaning to the phrase "BS in communications," that's for sure.
