The MLF hire genuinely saved/revived Rodgers' career and I don't know how anyone can read the evidence any other way.
Speaking of evidence, we have 4 years of Rodgers and MLF together. Let's do some comparisons.
First, we can look at the best statistical run of Rodgers' career, 2011-2014, when he won 2 MVP awards.
Then, we can look at the 4 years preceding MLF's hire to see how Rodgers was playing (and the team was winning).
Finally, we'll look at Rodgers' 4 years with MLF
- image.png (12.17 KiB) Viewed 471 times
Rodgers under MLF started more games, threw for more yards, won more games, took fewer sacks...
His numbers under MLF compare very nicely to his 2011-2014 stretch. But the MLF numbers BLOW AWAY the four years in between, when Rodgers had been gradually declining or stagnating.
Any argument that says "MLF's success is qualified by the fact that he had Aaron Rodgers" has to compare the MLF years to other years in Rodgers' career. The Packers had more wins in these 4 years than the other stretches, even with the losing season in 2022. Rodgers won 2 MVPs in this 4-year stretch just like he did from 2011 to 2014. And none in between.
Sure, we're all curious if he can win without Rodgers. And that will and should be taken into consideration. But it's important to note that he also won MORE with Rodgers than Rodgers was winning without him.
Again, obviously, the Super Bowl in 2010 was the topper, but unless we're arguing that McCarthy is simply a better coach than MLF because he won that Super Bowl, then it's not a trump card. Aaron Rodgers was better with MLF than he was in the years just before MLF came along, and MLF deserves that credit and respect even if he struggles without Rodgers in the coming years. The fact that his track record is littered with QBs performing at or near their best under his coaching also points to the fact that this is not a fluke of timing, but a MLF effect. Rodgers owes that latest contract he signed to MLF because without that hire, Rodgers would have been retired by now.