Their analysis is totally reasonable. It may be wrong, but it's reasonable.
Diggs gives you a tradeoff of picks vs. lots of passing yardage given up and poor run defense. I've noticed him avoiding contact often.
They've actually done the math on "Wins Above Replacement Value". Maybe their math is wrong. But most people criticizing their evaluation haven't even *considered the concept* of "Wins Above Replacement Value", let alone tried to make a calculation of their own.
From what they say, they may have a problem with their methodology. Seems like they want to dismiss some of the INTs as easy or lucky. Maybe they were. But dismissing such plays is inconsistent with a data driven WARW approach. And being *in position* to make the easy play is most of the trick, and as we've seen over the years, those "easy picks" just aren't that easy for all professional players to catch. And are they similarly dismissing getting beat by a well thrown ball? And getting them to throw at you is much of the trick to getting INTs. It's a tradeoff.
Life is full of tradeoffs. Diggs presents an interesting case study in player evaluation. Most INTs, Most Yardage. What's really the value tradeoff? I don't know. And neither do you.