While signing Brett Favre would be a one-year fix for the Vikings, signing Brett Favre would not make 2009 "Super Bowl or bust." The Vikings have a nucleus of talented young players who should be playing at a high level for several years, and a well-run organization can add talent to build around such a nucleus. In today's NFL, no season should be Super Bowl or bust for any team.
However, the Vikings aren't going to be a serious Super Bowl contender until they resolve their issues at the quarterback position. Resolving it for one season, then going into 2010 with the position again a dilemma, does not help the Vikings. That means if the Vikings do sign Favre, they're making 2009 a very critical season. To set back finding a long-term quarterback, the Vikings are banking that a 40 year old quarterback with a penchant for throwing crazy interceptions, a recent history of wearing down in the second half of a season, and a history of unreliable playoff performances can transform a playoff team into a Super Bowl contender.
I'm skeptical. Favre might make the '09 Vikings better than Sage Rosenfels would. But how much better? And at what cost?