I wonder what you mean by "significant contribution". Maybe rules can be changed to be whichever quarterback plays the most snaps for the game? Or the QBs that play at least 30% of snaps or something like that

@Riley12 I guess my test case would be like the Justin Fields sub package the Steelers ran. Or Mariota on sneaks for the Commanders. The objective measure is better I think (the other way to go would be include active backups but that significantly changes the market). It kinda sucks though if like a backup came in for a good drive and didn't reach the threshold there that they wouldn't be included? Maybe 30% snaps or 40+ yards total ground + air?

They say situation is everything, how are the rookies doing here after their new landing spots?

Daniel Jones being below zach wilson is a little crazy lol

*Jameis

@BrunoParga No, it's Jameson. No is free money.

Is this supposed to be Bo Nix?

Hurts > Allen?

@StopPunting right now Hurts is below Joe Burrow. I really like Joe and think he has decent chances of eventually getting his ring, but he's not playing a freaking conference game this weekend.

@BrunoParga oh I agree I just bought hurts up

@StopPunting if the AI is to be believed, the percentages add up to 959%. So among these guys we have the next decade of Super Bowls covered, disregarding any repeats, wins by guys not yet on the list or those who already have rings.

Like, there are possibly QBs who will win a Super Bowl in 2035 or earlier who are still in high school. Then you have the ones in the league who have already won and might, at least in principle, win again (Mahomes, Wilson, Stafford, Mahomes, Rodgers, Mahomes, Mahomes, technically-still-a-Colt Joe Flacco, Mahomes, Mahomes, and Mahomes).

That is to say that all options are significantly overpriced.