03-23-2019, 01:10 PM
(03-23-2019, 11:51 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Not saying they all need to have half a dozen each, but a few would be nice. Stephen Gilmore was probably the best CB in the league last season and he only had 2. Two is a lot better than 0 though...
There are many things to consider, but INT's are definitely one of them for me. I know people think it's smart to ignore INT's (just as people think it's "smart" to ignore sack totals...but that's for another thread), yet when we talk about underrated Bengals players, we always bring up Ken Riley and his 65 INT's. Funny, eh?
The best corners can often wind up with lower INT totals because QB's are avoiding them, but I'd say there's usually only 2-3 CB's in the league who are THAT great...and even Deion (considered the best cover corner of all-time) had 53 INT's for his career.
Ultimately, 99% of corners get thrown at quite a bit, and INT's are often signs of (a) you stuck tight to your man and (b) you have good timing and hands. These are skills. If the CB is gambles too much and gets burned, people usually know about it. You can't blindly look at INT totals and say "that guy gambles" or "QB's are avoiding that guy because he had 0 INT's".
Consider that we have some CB's with iffy PFF grades AND 0 INT's. That's a problem. That means they're getting burned AND not getting turnovers.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
