I'm a Favre skeptic that would prefer the Vikings start Sage Rosenfels. I hope, then, that when I address the positives of adding Brett Favre to the Vikings, I'm able to offer a modest, sober assessment. But there are some on-the-field benefits to having Favre at quarterback.
Spreading the field for AP
It's hard to believe that the following two statements are true:
A. In his career, Adrian Peterson's starting quarterbacks have been Tarvaris Jackson, Kelly Holcomb, Brooks Bollinger, and Gus Frerotte.
B. Adrian Peterson has averaged 5.2 yards per rush.
In 2007 I watched the Chicago Bears occasionally put nine players in the box. Eight in the box is a regular occurance. Could a team do that with Brett Favre as the opposing QB? I don't know, and that could mean a career year for AP.
Low sack rate
Favre's career sack percentage is 4.8%. He led the league with 2.2% in 2004 and was as low as 2.7% in 2007. The Vikings have a good running game, but for years have been bad in 3rd and 11+ situation. A low sack rate will put the Vikings in fewer terrible situations.
Third and long?
Then again, perhaps a strong-armed quarterback like Favre will give the team a better chance of converting on third and long, too. I feel the Vikings have struggled in third and long since the days of Daunte Culpepper and Randy Moss.
The Vikings haven't had much of a hurry-up offense at all in the Childress reign; Favre would make the Vikings better when they need to drive quickly.
I do not know that these positives outweight the various glaring negatives. I also do not know that Sage Rosenfels would not provide some of the same things. But these are some potential benefits to Brett Favre at quarterback.