It’s the number one stat for getting voted into the Hall of Fame as a DB. INT’s signify playmaking ability.
So, it's your contention that Everson Walls was a better player than Cliff Harris, Troy Polamalu, Steve Atwater and Brian Dawkins.
Hell, even with an apples to apples position comparison you are telling me Everson Walls was a better player than Deion Sanders, Darrell Green, Champ Bailey, Ty Law and Mike Haynes.
So, you want to talk about the HOF ….? Every player I listed above is in the HOF except Walls, and every one of them has fewer INTs than Walls.
Which means the HOF does not share your opinion that a DB with more INTs is automatically a better player than one with fewer INT's.
Face it, it is not the infallible standard you make it out to be, either for judging who is better, or who the HOF will take.
The fallacy you are hanging your hat on is that cumulative stats are as much a function of longevity as they are of quality play. It's a combination of the two things, not just the quality as you suggest.