But opportunities for interceptions have actually declined a bit even though teams pass more, because for the most part the passes are less risky. Also, the rules are not nearly as favorable for DB's as they used to be. They are often penalized for even the slightest contact.

Take a look at the career leaders in interceptions. There are lots of older players here, even though they had shorter seasons back then:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/def_int_career.htm 

This suggests that Charles Woodson's high interception total is not a byproduct of his era.

Originally Posted by: Greg C. 

I will give you partial credit. I thought there would be more on the list than there is. However there is a significant number of the top players on the list who has played recently. 9 of the top 24 37.5% played into the year 2000 or later.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

By selecting the top 24, you've obtained the highest percentage you possibly could for the more recent players. Looking at it more objectively, there are 2 of the top 10 (20%), 5 of the top 20 (25%), 9 of the top 30 (30%), and 14 of the top 50 (28%).

Another factor to keep in mind is that there are way more teams now than there were back then, which means more players, which tends to result in more statistical extremes. Yet this list is not heavily weighted toward the more recent players.

The bottom line is that Woodson's career interception total stands out just as much among his contemporaries as it does among all DB's who have ever played in the league, and he's not done yet.

Originally Posted by: Greg C. 

You've mentioned a couple of times now that teams pass more now than they used to. Everybody knows that. But as I've already explained, more passes do not necessarily lead to more interception opportunities. That's because a much higher percentage of passes nowadays are short and safe, and the rules favor the offensive players.

Originally Posted by: Greg C. 

agreed. no argument here. Without looking at the numbers I thought it would be closer to 40%.

The only point I was trying to make at this time is that with 20% or 30% of the players on the list have played since 2000 that it is higher than the .11% would generate with the 90 years that the NFL has been around. If you don't feel it is a significant difference I am fine with that. If you don't think we should count the passes from the 20's and 30's even the 40's I don't mind that either.

Originally Posted by: wpr