Have at It: Cutler, Stafford and INTs

Quarterbacks Matthew Stafford and Jay Cutler combined to throw 46 INTs in 2009. AP Photo/M. Spencer Green

Somehow during this week's SportsNation chat, we got around to a question that surely has been burning a hole in your brain. Chris of Bethlehem, Ga., asked which NFC North quarterback -- the Chicago Bears' Jay Cutler or Matthew Stafford of the Detroit Lions -- would throw more interceptions in 2010.

Cutler threw an NFL-high 26 in 16 games last season. Stafford had 20 in 10 games. I went with Stafford but quickly got challenged. Here was the exchange:

Stephen (Troy, MI)

Kevin, you really think Stafford will throw 26 interceptions? Cuz that is about how many he will need to have more than Cutler. Stafford has an equal O-line, better WR's, better RB and probably equal to better TE's. The surrounding cast is what I would look to, which is why I say 18 for Stafford and 25 for Cutler.

Kevin Seifert (2:52 PM)

Well, it's all just funny numbers because we're not actually playing games. But if you're going off last year's numbers, it's true that Cutler had 26 last year in 16 games. But Stafford had 20 in 10 games. According to my calculations, that's 32 INTs over 16 games. So Stafford definitely has the past history to suggest he'll have more than Cutler this year.

I'm not backing away from that sentiment but am willing to throw it out to the cyberfloor, Have at It style. Remember, Cutler threw 37 interceptions in his first 37 NFL starts before arriving in Chicago last year. It's also fair to point out that some quarterbacks have racked up high interception totals in the scheme of new Bears offensive coordinator Mike Martz. None other than Kurt Warner, in fact, threw 51 in a 34-game stretch while playing for St. Louis from 2000-02.

So let me know what you think and why. Will Cutler prove last season to be an aberration? Will Stafford make a major jump? Both? Neither? I'll publish a representative sample of your opinions, along with a fuller explanation of my own, by the end of the week. Have at It.