I think your point is self-defeating. You say that the great cornerbacks’ interceptions FLUCTUATE, but by fluctuating, you’re acknowledging that they exist. They don’t hover at zero. If it were attributed to luck, then why wouldn’t good cornerbacks get 4 then 0 then 6 then 2 then 0. Aqib Talib isn’t an all-time great, but I’m sure we can agree that he’s been a solid player; he’s had 4, 5, 6, 2, 2, 4, 4, 3, and 3 interceptions throughout his career. With a high of 6 and a low of 2, he’s averaged 3.7 per year. Darius Slay is not as good as Talib, and he’s had 0, 2, 2, and 2 interceptions in his career, with the 0 coming when he didn’t play much as a rookie.
If luck is so important here, why is Darius Slay averaging 1.5 (or 2) interceptions a year and consistently putting up lower numbers, while Talib is putting up better numbers consistently, regardless of whether he’s playing with Tampa Bay, New England, or Denver? The answer is obvious: Talib is better than Slay.
There wasn’t fluctuation with Stribling. Naturally, I agree that there’s *an* element of luck. For example, Stribling was very lucky that Hawaii’s QB threw the ball directly into his chest for a pick-six in the season opener. That wasn’t great coverage or talent. It was a crappy play by an overwhelmed QB. But that doesn’t account for all of his interceptions and pass breakups. I think you’re overstating how much luck is involved in playing cornerback.
(BTW, you seem to be limiting this conversation to interceptions, whereas I have repeatedly stated that pass breakups should also be used in the equation. I might agree that 2 interceptions can turn into 4 interceptions because of “luck,” but 3 PBUs doesn’t turn into 13 PBUs because of “luck.” Your stats don’t improve by 433% because of random chance.)
