And, of course, money being equal I would take Rodgers, but that's a big reason why I posed the question. That and the fact that Rodgers will soon be on the downside of his career.
Printable View
As long as Rodgers doesn't get into the funk of consistently holding onto the ball too long I don't see him losing much for another five years.
I think it was Fritz who mentioned he may be letting his celebrity go to his head some though, which is a risk. If he starts to think he's too good to be coached that could cause some problems. One of his greatest strengths in his earlier years was his patience and willingness to beat teams taking what the defense gave him rather than holding it for the big play. That needs to come back - and stay. He'll lose some mobility but maintain his effectiveness as long as he gets the ball out quickly enough. Otherwise he'll get increasingly pounded and I'd hope they move on if it came to that.
Patience, yes. Too much at times. But take what the defense gives you is an interesting proposition.
He (and McCarthy) would take single coverage out wide every time if they could and that often means going deep. Much of their scheme is designed to facilitate that or back shoulder throws.
But even when they ran multiple personnel groups out to get matchup edges, they were targeting certain players on certain coverage. I'm no sure this has ever been a 1-2-3 progression offense post snap.
So yes take what the defense gives, but in pre snap reads mostly.