Aaron Rodgers vs. Russell Wilson: Breaking down their 2024 performances and what they can offer to teams like Steelers and Giants

Go back five, six years ago. Aaron Rodgers and Russell Wilson were elite quarterbacks, winning individual awards and making Pro Bowl after Pro Bowl. Life changes fast, especially in the NFL. Now, both are free agents and are looking for new opportunities trying to make a potential final run in their careers.

Rodgers was cut by the New York Jets, and Wilson wasn't retained by the Pittsburgh Steelers. Now, the Steelers themselves and the New York Giants are the two most likely options for Rodgers, with the Minnesota Vikings also considering him, while Wilson scheduled visits with the Giants and the Cleveland Browns.

There are considerations for both sides. Wilson is five years younger and overall played better last year. Meanwhile, Rodgers has a much better career and is now two years removed from his Achilles injury, which could help him regain some of his natural athleticism, despite his advanced age. It's fair to say that Wilson played in a better situation, too, with a more stable franchise and a better offensive line (13th in pass block win rate, vs. 23rd from the Jets).

But let's dive into the numbers and see what they can still bring to the table.

Efficiency

Part of the Steelers' plan to protect both Russell Wilson and Justin Fields was to limit their attempts. Last season, in 11 games, he averaged 30.5 attempts per game. On the Jets, Rodgers had 34.3 throws per week.

That allowed Wilson to be fairly efficient. He was the second best quarterback in the NFL in turnover-worthy play rate (1.7) and the sixth in big-time throw rate (5.7). It was some sort of a pound and bomb offense, and Wilson delivered. His average depth of target was 15th (8.4) in the league.

Picking his spots intelligently, Wilson was sixth in completion percentage over expectation (4.5), while Rodgers was only the 30th (-2.6%).

As he's always been throughout his career, Aaron Rodgers was still good at limiting turnovers. He was fifth in turnover-worthy play rate (1.8), but the ability to create big plays was limited—16th in big-time throw rate (4.2). Rodgers also tends to be more willing to make shorter throws, and his average depth of target was 35th (7.3), a byproduct of both his style and the lack of protection upfront. This also forced him to throw faster, and he had the 11th quicker average time to throw (2.65). Russell Wilson was 28th (2.84).

Offensive effectiveness

Even though Russell Wilson's individual numbers looked good, and certainly better than Aaron Rodgers', he failed to lead an effective offense. That means sometimes he completed a pass that wouldn't put his offense in a favorable position.

Not that the difference between them was that meaningful, but even playing with a worse supporting cast Rodgers was better in EPA/play (19th, 0.057 vs. 21st, 0.019) and success rate (24th, 44.3% vs 26th, 43.3%).

Despite their ages and issues as quarterbacks, both Aaron Rodgers and Russell Wilson showed they are still capable starters in the NFL. At the same time, it's clear that they are not the high-level quarterbacks they once were, especially because of their decrease in mobility to escape the pocket. Any team that signs them will have to handle this reality. But there might be some left in the tank, and finding a young quarterback immediately better than them isn't that easy at this point in free agency or in the draft.